Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   FDA rejects queer eye for straight guy   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Repeat, United Network for Organ Sharing, KCCI  
•       •       •

9896 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2014 at 6:31 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-16 05:34:51 PM  
Now that's a good headline.
 
2014-08-16 05:35:34 PM  
That's moronic.

If I were blind and was told I could see again but there was a 1% chance I might get AIDS....ARE YOU KIDDING? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? PUT THE DAMNED EYES IN!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-16 05:38:21 PM  
Good headline, repeat story.
 
2014-08-16 05:52:10 PM  
I think this story was already greened, but this is the headline that should've accompanied it. Bravo.
 
2014-08-16 06:12:06 PM  
Um is there a question for blood donors if they have had sex with a prostitute since 1977?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-16 06:22:10 PM  
spongeboob

There's a one year ban on blood donation after sex with a prostitute, according to http://www.newenglandblood.org/giving/guide.htm. The disease risks are different.
 
2014-08-16 08:35:11 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: I think this story was already greened, but this is the headline that should've accompanied it. Bravo.


Seriously. Unfreakable, can you green this as "REPEAT" so we can vote on it as HOTY?
 
2014-08-16 09:46:46 PM  
Oh wow.  Awesome headline.
 
2014-08-16 09:49:44 PM  
But because his mother could not confirm to the donor network that her son hadn't been sexually active in the five years before his death, Betts's eyes were rejected.

So now you have to PROVE it? That's going to disqualify a whole lot of people.
 
2014-08-16 10:13:50 PM  
1) Farking awesome headline, subby. HOYT contender, if not the winner
2) This:

Before he died, Betts had a request: Donate my organs. A 14-year-old boy received Betts's heart, according to a letter Moore received, but she said his eyes were rejected.
A Food and Drug Administration's guidance for donor eligibility says men who have had sex with men in the past five years "should" be ruled as "ineligible" for donating certain tissues, labeling their behavior a "risk factor."


I understand gay men are the highest risk factor for HIV, and you can't test properly for it if recently infected, but if you're giving a heart to someone, how can it hurt to allow a donation of the eyes? The horse is out of the barn at that point.
 
2014-08-16 10:27:54 PM  
Man, I wish I was that clever. Good job subby.
 
2014-08-16 11:28:52 PM  
*golf clap*

+1
 
2014-08-17 12:07:13 AM  
Sad tale, marvelous headline.

Now the song "I Only Have Eyes for You" is stuck in my head...
 
2014-08-17 12:08:42 AM  
3rd greenlight for this one. Reported the second one and got it deleted, but I guess this one was greenlit on purpose, hence the "repeat" tag.
 
2014-08-17 01:44:05 AM  

TommyymmoT: That's moronic.

If I were blind and was told I could see again but there was a 1% chance I might get AIDS....ARE YOU KIDDING? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? PUT THE DAMNED EYES IN!


came here to say
THIS THIS MORE FARKING THIS


esp since you can reduce those odds by doing blood tests on the dead kid's blood, etc, etc, etc
 
2014-08-17 01:50:34 AM  
Now THAT is a headline.  Good job, subby!
 
2014-08-17 02:45:41 AM  

Candygram4Mongo: Sad tale, marvelous headline.

Now the song "I Only Have Eyes for You" is stuck in my head...


"For Your Eyes Only"... have been rejected.
 
2014-08-17 02:53:51 AM  
This is a magnificent headline. I would vote for it whether I was gay or straight.
 
2014-08-17 03:28:18 AM  

namatad: esp since you can reduce those odds by doing blood tests on the dead kid's blood, etc, etc, etc


They can't test successfully for HIV if exposure has happened recently. That's the whole justification for the blood donation ban. The tests look for antibodies and if you've just been infected, they don't show up. If you're dead, then there's no possibility of testing for it at all.
 
2014-08-17 03:31:58 AM  

Lsherm: namatad: esp since you can reduce those odds by doing blood tests on the dead kid's blood, etc, etc, etc

They can't test successfully for HIV if exposure has happened recently. That's the whole justification for the blood donation ban. The tests look for antibodies and if you've just been infected, they don't show up. If you're dead, then there's no possibility of testing for it at all.


Sorry, I should also add (as noted in the article) that critical organs are allowed if the recipient signs off on an infection, so heart, kidney, etc are allowed to be donated. Eyes apparently don't reach the critical designation. I don't know if that's because the government doesn't consider sight a life-saving transplant or for other reasons.
 
2014-08-17 07:38:54 AM  
I see what you did there.
 
2014-08-17 07:57:18 AM  

Lsherm: I understand gay men are the highest risk factor for HIV, and you can't test properly for it if recently infected, but if you're giving a heart to someone, how can it hurt to allow a donation of the eyes? The horse is out of the barn at that point.


People without a working heart tend to die before a new heart is available. People without a working whatever part of the eye they are looking for are inconvenienced for a longer period. In one case the risk is well worth it, in the other not so much.
 
2014-08-17 08:01:14 AM  
This is not a civil rights issue, it's an issue of infection control.

I don't think that laws governing infection control should take civil rights into account. For better, or for worse. It shouldn't even factor in.
 
2014-08-17 08:17:45 AM  

fusillade762: But because his mother could not confirm to the donor network that her son hadn't been sexually active in the five years before his death, Betts's eyes were rejected.

So now you have to PROVE it? That's going to disqualify a whole lot of people.


Tender the kids WoW account as proof?
 
2014-08-17 08:37:52 AM  
Gay eyes turn you gay
 
2014-08-17 08:42:03 AM  

TommyymmoT: That's moronic.

If I were blind and was told I could see again but there was a 1% chance I might get AIDS....ARE YOU KIDDING? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? PUT THE DAMNED EYES IN!


Do you have *any idea* what the queers are doing to the soil?
 
2014-08-17 08:50:19 AM  
Slightly off-topic... aren't transplant eyes a cosmetic-only procedure? Last i heard, once the optic nerve was severed, there was no way to get it talking to the brain again.
 
2014-08-17 08:54:37 AM  

LoneVVolf: Slightly off-topic... aren't transplant eyes a cosmetic-only procedure? Last i heard, once the optic nerve was severed, there was no way to get it talking to the brain again.


You can get iris transplants to replace the lenses at the front of the eyeball, since there are ailments which affect the lenses but leave the nerves at the back fully functional.
 
2014-08-17 08:55:16 AM  

Candygram4Mongo: Sad tale, marvelous headline.

Now the song "I Only Have Eyes for You" is stuck in my head...


If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
 
2014-08-17 08:58:32 AM  
Also:
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-08-17 09:10:41 AM  
media.tumblr.com

Bravo, Subs

/wirth the dupe
 
2014-08-17 09:12:33 AM  

gerbilpox: [media.tumblr.com image 473x253]

Bravo, Subs

/wirth worth the dupe


FTFM

/always preview
 
2014-08-17 09:12:39 AM  
FTFA:

Soon, she knew, her 16-year-old boy would be taken off life support - another life lost to bullying.

i.scm.im
 
2014-08-17 09:22:41 AM  

flup: This is not a civil rights issue, it's an issue of infection control.

I don't think that laws governing infection control should take civil rights into account. For better, or for worse. It shouldn't even factor in.


Disingenuous.

The "rules" are - more than just in part - solely based on discrimination.

Why?

1) Straight people can be insanely promiscuous.  No ban.
2) Gay men can be in a monogamous relationship for years with HIV testing proof of HIV- status.   Ban.
3) Straight people can actually have sex with HIV+ people, but if they test negative after one year,  No ban.
4) Gay men can test multiple times, always test negative, have few (or even no) sexual partners for years, Ban.

Furthermore, all donated blood and tissue is tested.

IF the rules were TRULY bias-free they would apply equally across all orientations because the virus doesn't care who you boink.   But they're not because "straight people are special".

So I agree with your statement - IF by it you mean "there's no reason to discriminate on the basis of orientation" in that we should be rejecting more promiscuous straight people and accepting more HIV- non-heterosexuals.
 
2014-08-17 09:42:04 AM  

ursomniac: So I agree with your statement - IF by it you mean "there's no reason to discriminate on the basis of orientation" in that we should be rejecting more promiscuous straight people and accepting more HIV- non-heterosexuals.


I'm sort of of the opinion that they shouldn't even be asking anyone's sexual orientation, or other such questions... I mean, it's not any kind of security or protective measure; it can be defeated by simply lying! So, it's obviously not a critical measure that's doing anything at all to protect anyone... If the actual tests they do on the blood/tissue aren't good enough to catch all cases of infection, then I would've expected a lot of reports of AIDS tainted blood slipping past them by now... Because, surely no one can believe that 100% of the people who donate are completely truthful in response to their questions?? If we're truly relying on everyone being completely honest as a crucial measure to prevent the spread of disease, well we're doing it wrong, and we're all going to die! So, presumably such questions are just completely useless, and the actual tests they do are what's really protecting us... So, get rid of the useless questions...
 
2014-08-17 09:58:06 AM  
3rd time for this story to be greenlit.

Can somebody get it greenlit a 4th time?

Only if they are a greenlight getting god.

So lets see what you chowderheads can do to get this greenlit again. If you do you win the internets FOREVER!
 
2014-08-17 11:07:56 AM  

Lsherm: I understand gay men are the highest risk factor for HIV, and you can't test properly for it if recently infected, but if you're giving a heart to someone, how can it hurt to allow a donation of the eyes? The horse is out of the barn at that point.


HIV/AIDS - life-long condition, high probability of premature death
Blindness - life-long condition, low probability of premature death
Heart Failure - imminently fatal
Kidney Failure - imminently fatal
Liver Failure - imminently fatal.

that's why.

"you can either die next week or 10 years from now" (new HIV infected heart)
"you can either risk being dead within 10 years or see" (HIV infected eye transplant)
 
2014-08-17 11:12:00 AM  

fusillade762: Candygram4Mongo: Sad tale, marvelous headline.

Now the song "I Only Have Eyes for You" is stuck in my head...

"For Your Eyes Only"... have been rejected.


What about "In your eyes?"
 
2014-08-17 11:14:01 AM  

ursomniac: flup: This is not a civil rights issue, it's an issue of infection control.

I don't think that laws governing infection control should take civil rights into account. For better, or for worse. It shouldn't even factor in.

Disingenuous.

The "rules" are - more than just in part - solely based on discrimination.

Why?

1) Straight people can be insanely promiscuous.  No ban.
2) Gay men can be in a monogamous relationship for years with HIV testing proof of HIV- status.   Ban.
3) Straight people can actually have sex with HIV+ people, but if they test negative after one year,  No ban.
4) Gay men can test multiple times, always test negative, have few (or even no) sexual partners for years, Ban.

Furthermore, all donated blood and tissue is tested.

IF the rules were TRULY bias-free they would apply equally across all orientations because the virus doesn't care who you boink.   But they're not because "straight people are special".

So I agree with your statement - IF by it you mean "there's no reason to discriminate on the basis of orientation" in that we should be rejecting more promiscuous straight people and accepting more HIV- non-heterosexuals.


Orientation has nothing to do with it.  A straight man having sex with another man will be just as disqualified as a gay man having sex with another man.  It's the "having sex with another man" that gets you disqualified because the transmission rate for that particular sex act is astronomically higher than any other.
 
2014-08-17 11:31:25 AM  

flup: This is not a civil rights issue, it's an issue of infection control.

I don't think that laws governing infection control should take civil rights into account. For better, or for worse. It shouldn't even factor in.


Except they do. For instance, rates are higher than average among black people (even if you just limit it to black women) but the reason nobody will even seriously suggest a racial component in screening is because, even though there would be some marginal improvement in the safety of donations, the idea of doing that is abhorrent on its face.

And I'm fine with that - we balance safety against other societal concerns all the time and very often we decide that extra safety isn't necessarily worth it.
 
2014-08-17 11:56:47 AM  

The_Original_Roxtar: Lsherm: I understand gay men are the highest risk factor for HIV, and you can't test properly for it if recently infected, but if you're giving a heart to someone, how can it hurt to allow a donation of the eyes? The horse is out of the barn at that point.

HIV/AIDS - life-long condition, high probability of premature death
Blindness - life-long condition, low probability of premature death
Heart Failure - imminently fatal
Kidney Failure - imminently fatal
Liver Failure - imminently fatal.

that's why.

"you can either die next week or 10 years from now" (new HIV infected heart)
"you can either risk being dead within 10 years or see" (HIV infected eye transplant)


Hiv, in the first world, is no longer the 10 year death sentence it once was. And treatment typically runs less than a dollar a day.
 
2014-08-17 12:12:07 PM  
FTA "Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr. attempted suicide in July 2013, the Des Moines Register reported at the time. He died shortly thereafter."

I'm no journalist, but I think attempting suicide and then dying is just called committing suicide.
 
2014-08-17 12:17:38 PM  

Biological Ali: flup: This is not a civil rights issue, it's an issue of infection control.

I don't think that laws governing infection control should take civil rights into account. For better, or for worse. It shouldn't even factor in.

Except they do. For instance, rates are higher than average among black people (even if you just limit it to black women) but the reason nobody will even seriously suggest a racial component in screening is because, even though there would be some marginal improvement in the safety of donations, the idea of doing that is abhorrent on its face.

And I'm fine with that - we balance safety against other societal concerns all the time and very often we decide that extra safety isn't necessarily worth it.


The Red Cross blood donation questionnaire asks "Have you ever been in Africa?", and if you say Yes, your blood is disqualified for anonymous transfusion
 
2014-08-17 12:30:07 PM  

spongeboob: Um is there a question for blood donors if they have had sex with a prostitute since 1977?


It is safer to have sex with a professional reviewed escort than it is to have sex with some girl you meet at the grocery store and exponentially safer than a girl you would meet at a bar or club.

Acceptance of perceived inevitability among certain subsets of the young gay community translates to a lot of extremely risky promiscuous sexual behavior.
 
2014-08-17 12:30:42 PM  

ransack.: The Red Cross blood donation questionnaire asks "Have you ever been in Africa?", and if you say Yes, your blood is disqualified for anonymous transfusion



I'm aware of that, but that's not exactly racial screening. A racial component in the screening process would be to use the person's race itself as a potential risk factor. Since rates are higher for black people, and since questionnaire results aren't perfectly reliable, it would be a mathematical fact that donations from black people (even if they've answered all the questions perfectly) would be more risky than from white people.

Now this isn't to say that a racial component in the screening would mean that black people are automatically banned from donating. Overall it would have a negligible impact in terms of actual rejections. However, what it would mean is that all else being equal, a black person's donation would be refused while a donation from a similarly-placed white person would be accepted. And the prospect of that happening makes a lot of people uneasy (I think understandably so).

I've given blood a few times and I've never been asked about my ethnicity directly (never donated in the US though - maybe they do things differently there).
 
2014-08-17 12:41:25 PM  
Damn, subby, I've never done this before:

+2
 
2014-08-17 12:45:29 PM  

TommyymmoT: That's moronic.

If I were blind and was told I could see again but there was a 1% chance I might get AIDS....ARE YOU KIDDING? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? PUT THE DAMNED EYES IN!


In an earlier thread someone (I forget who) suggested a waiver.  Those potential recipients who were willing to take the AIDS risk could get the eyes.  Those who didn't want to take the risk, didn't.  Seemed like a win-win to me.
 
2014-08-17 12:46:39 PM  

fusillade762: But because his mother could not confirm to the donor network that her son hadn't been sexually active in the five years before his death, Betts's eyes were rejected.

So now you have to PROVE it? That's going to disqualify a whole lot of people.


Show them your collection of Warhammer miniatures.  That ought to do the trick.
 
2014-08-17 12:47:30 PM  
I would've gone with "cancels" not "rejects" but whatever. That's not worth another [repeat].
 
2014-08-17 12:50:45 PM  

Biological Ali: ransack.: The Red Cross blood donation questionnaire asks "Have you ever been in Africa?", and if you say Yes, your blood is disqualified for anonymous transfusion


I'm aware of that, but that's not exactly racial screening. A racial component in the screening process would be to use the person's race itself as a potential risk factor. Since rates are higher for black people, and since questionnaire results aren't perfectly reliable, it would be a mathematical fact that donations from black people (even if they've answered all the questions perfectly) would be more risky than from white people.

Now this isn't to say that a racial component in the screening would mean that black people are automatically banned from donating. Overall it would have a negligible impact in terms of actual rejections. However, what it would mean is that all else being equal, a black person's donation would be refused while a donation from a similarly-placed white person would be accepted. And the prospect of that happening makes a lot of people uneasy (I think understandably so).

I've given blood a few times and I've never been asked about my ethnicity directly (never donated in the US though - maybe they do things differently there).


They don't ask about ethnicity, but they ask if you're a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, so homosexual males are automatically excluded.

They don't specify anal sex in particular, so either they just don't want icky gay blood for reasons unrelated to disease transmission, or they subscribe to a Clintonesque definition of sex that doesn't include oral simulation.

They don't ask you anything about sex if you're a woman except "Have you ever had sex for drugs or money since 1977?"

They should just ask "Has it been at least a year since you let a random hookup cum in your ass?"
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report