Should Gay Men Be Prohibited From Donating Blood?

[arwalden]

To my knowledge, this ban is still in effect. I'm not sure if it's merely a universal policy among organizations that collect blood, or if there's a federal regulation behind it. Nevertheless... the primary question still remains:

Why am I--a gay man who actually KNOWS his HIV status--prohibited from donating blood, but other people are not prohibited? What makes the blood from other people (who do NOT know their HIV status) any more safe?

Surely the blood banks don't just take the donor's word for it when he's answering the pre-screening questions about sexual history, IV drug use, etc etc. Do the blood banks automatically assume that the donated blood is completely safe to use, based on the donor's answers?

CERTAINLY they test EVERY pint of blood that's donated, right?

So if we assume that the blood bank is testing every pint of blood... is their ban on homosexual blood donors valid? Or is it just bigotry? Does the ban contribute to the climate of hostility and intolerance of homosexuals? Is it an outdated remnant of the anti-gay sentiments and hysteria that's left-over from the earliest days of the AIDS crisis? Are gays being unfairly stigmatized?

[demnan]

1. Look on the bright side

Maybe the life you won't be saving belongs to a homophobic idiot!

(Sometimes the only way to approach an idiotic world is through idiocy)

[glaucon]

2. Every pint of blood is tested

BUT, no test is perfect. If the blood supply becomes critical, the deferral criteria are sometimes changed. But if the supply is sufficient under current regs, why take additional chances, even if it's only a microscopic chance?

The FDA sets blood donation deferral regulations.

What makes you think you have a RIGHT to donate blood? The point is to make the blood supply as safe as humanly possible. The person who has priority here is the the RECIPIENT, not the donor. The Red Cross and other blood banks are there for those in desperate need of SAFE blood, and NOT in order to provide an opportunity for you to feel good about yourself for having donated a pint of blood.

[moose65]

4. Well.........

Of course there is no "right" to donate blood. All he is saying is that it is ASSUMED that every gay man is at risk, which of course is ridiculous. Most of us know our HIV status. It's those who DON'T who are the real threat, and that includes many women and straight guys. Why are gay men singled out and automatically rejected?

[Meeker Morgan]

9. It is also assumed that anyone ...

... who has been in the tropics lately is a risk. Not just for AIDS, but also malaria and some other stuff as well.

They're not being homophobic, just super cautious.

If you needed blood they're not going to ask if you're gay.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fasttense]

6. The Red Cross takes blood from you for free

and then sells it to hospitals and individuals. They actually make some money off of it. Which is why I don't give blood to them.

Your argument about a "clean" blood supply is superfluous. I've been to some inner city donation centers and seen some very sick people giving blood for money. I use to sell my blood when I was in college to make ends meet. You can tell these centers anything and they'll give you money for your blood. It's a business, just like the rest of the medical profession.

[glaucon]

8. The Red Cross is a non-profit organization

If by "making money" you mean they cover the costs of producing a final blood product, then yes. If you mean making a profit, then no. There ARE several for-profit blood companies that are currently trying to put the Red Cross out of business. They pay low wages to part-time employees, don't pay health benefits, and resist unionization. The Red Cross pays its employees well, is mostly unionized, and pays excellent health benefits.

[arwalden]

10. Well...

<< What makes you think you have a RIGHT to donate blood? >>

I'm unaware of having *asserted* any rights. My post sought to find out if the current policy was fair, warranted, and effective. Or is it a homophobic policy that's based on irrational fears and blame-laying that continues to stigmatize homosexuals.

Excluding any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 suggests to me that this the nature nature of the policy is very homophobic.

<< The point is to make the blood supply as safe as humanly possible. >>

The policy also ignores the health risk posed by heterosexual donors who've been exposed to HIV or AIDS. It also ignores the statistics of HIV infection in the Black community. Perhaps the FDA should ban urban Black men from donating as well. Black men are seven times more likely than white men to be HIV+. In the United States, Black women make up 67% of all women who are diagnosed HIV+.

[Misunderestimator]

23. WTF? A right to donate blood? Feel GOOD about himself for doing it?

:wtf: are you talking about? This is about discrimination, plain and simple. A gay man has as much RESPONSIBILITY as EVERY CITIZEN to donate blood, and to disallow him from doing so is DISCRIMINATION.

You don't think that not allowing gay men from donating blood is discrimination? Is it because you think that heterosexuals are not at risk for HIV? Do you know that heterosexuals are contracting HIV at a MUCH higher rate than homosexuals, especially considering that homosexual men account for maybe 5% of the population?

Damn, your post is insulting! :mad:

[dsc]

26. It should be noted

that people have died for lack of blood due to this restrictive policy. I have O negative blood and if I were honest when donating I couldn't do so. Yet, I know, not think, but know for a fact, I don't have HIV. Why should someone die for lack of my blood as could well happen under this policy. I am literally dunned to donate blood immediately after I am eligable to give again after the 56 days.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Sorry but it's a bad litmus test that creates a false sense of security

for those who need a transfusion based on bad science and bigotry. For the last several years, the population INCREASING in HIV infection worldwide is straight people NOT gay men..specifically straight women.

Being a monogamous gay male IS NO MORE A RISK factor for HIV than being a monogamous straight male.

It is bigotry and fearmongering being codified by bad medicine.

[readmoreoften]

30. There is a high rate of HIV among black Americans.

Should we ban African-Americans from donating blood? What do you think would be the subtext of that ban? Should a 75 year old grandmother who has been married for 50 years be angered? Nah. What 'right' does she think she has!

[moose65]

3. I was gonna ask a similar question....

We had a blood drive at my job last week, and I was asked several times to sign up for a slot, but I always either changed the subject or blew it off. I didn't really feel like saying "I don't give because I'd have to lie to do it" to a complete stranger. What do other gay guys do? Do you lie and give because you want to contribute? I don't think it's a federal law or anything; I think the Red Cross starting asking that question 20 years ago and they haven't stopped. It's clearly discrimination; women don't get asked about their sexual history, do they? Even the way it's worded is ridiculous.... are you a man who has had sex with another man, EVEN ONCE, since 1977? or something like that! What if they asked, are you a woman who has had sex with a man who had sex with another man even once since 1977? The lines at the blood drives would be a mile long while everyone answered all those questions!

[glaucon]

7. FDA regulates donor suitability

On April 23, 2004, FDA issued "Draft Guidance for Industry: Acceptable Full-Length Donor History Questionnaire and Accompanying Materials for Use in Screening Human Donors of Blood and Blood Components."

The Donor History Questionnaire was developed to encompass both FDA requirements and AABB standards. Although the FDA guidance permits elimination of questions not required by FDA, readers are reminded that AABB Standards for Blood Banks and Transfusion Services requires the questions to be asked.

Full-Length Questionnaire: http://www.aabb.org/Pressroom/In_the_News/udhqfull04.pdf

Medication Deferral List: http://www.aabb.org/Pressroom/In_the_News/udhqmeddef04.pdf

Donor Educational Materials: http://www.aabb.org/Pressroom/In_the_News/udhqedmat04.pdf

These standards are based on statistical risk factors because there ARE NO laboratory tests with 100% sensitivity and specificity. Is the "right" to donate more important than your right to receive safe blood and blood products? If you are ever in a situation where your life depends on a blood transfusion you will probably not say so.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. But the fact remains that they don't bar heteros from donating even though

....there is just as much risk that they may have an illness such as Hep C without knowing.

The "pre-screening" process that bars gays from giving blood is totally unecessary against gay men if it doesn't also bar sexually active heterosexuals as well.

Contrar to the defense of the guidelines, being gay in and of itself doesn't mean you are at high risk of having HIV.

[freestyle]

16. What about people who don't know their partner's history?

A lot of those questions assume people will know their partner's disease status, sexual history, drug use history, sexual employment history. A lot of folks just don't know, but will answer no because it seems like the best option. My partner and I have been together for seven years and are thoroughly disease free. We can't give blood. A straight person who bounces from partner to partner and is never really sure of that person's history and may not always use protection and may not have ever been tested for anything themselves can give blood. Who is the greater risk? The risk analysis is deeply flawed because women and straight men who don't know their status slip through while thoroughly healthy gay men are automatically barred.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. AGAIN...BEING GAY IS NOT A STATISTICAL RISK FACTOR

being gay and promiscuous IS. The CURRENT trend in HIV infection is moving toward straight people. The fact that a person in a monogamous, long term relationship is gay should NOT preclude them from giving blood and is of NO CONSEQUENCE to the blood supply.

YOu are DEFENDING codifying bigotry and fear mongering.

Someone in a long term relationship should NOT be precluded from donating blood. If anything, it creates a false sense of security.

[libnnc]

18. to answer your question about women...

My partner went to give blood about ten years ago and there was a question on the form asking if she had ever engaged in homosexual sex. She said "I'm a sexually active lesbian, so I guess y'all don't want my blood either." and walked out.

We don't give blood. Ever.

[eallen]

12. Where I donate, they don't ask about sexual orientation...

They ask about specific acts. Having had sex with another man after a certain date will get you excluded, even if you are straight, and the sexual act was an act of abuse when you were a child. Of course, that question more often excludes any sexually active gay man.

Yes, they test all the blood donated. The problem is that the tests are not perfect. Nor is knowledge of one's HIV status. So the blood banks are doing what they can to minimize the probability of passing on infected blood.

From the donor's viewpoint, the rules can seem quite arbitrary. I was excluded from donating for a year, simply because of a foreign country I had visited.

[glaucon]

13. The FDA "discriminates" against many groups

They discriminate against anyone who has had a tatoo in the last year.

Against IV drug users.

Against people who have visited malarial-risk areas.

Against the prison population.

Against people who have visited countries at risk for Mad Cow disease.

Once again, the "discrimination" is based on risk analysis.

If you're a man and have had sex with another man, you happen to be in a group that has a higher risk for a blood-transmittable disease than if you were a heterosexual. It makes no judgment about the morality of the lifestyle.

I understand the concern, and I suspect the criteria will change if the blood supply is attenuated in the future.

But if you were charged with protecting the nation's blood supply, what criteria would YOU use to screen donors? Would you use risk analysis, or put all your trust and faith in an imperfect testing system?

[Liberal Veteran]

14. And if you happen to be a sexually active heterosexual...

...you are high risk of HepC.

The risk analysis in this case is flawed.

A gay man in a monogamous relationship is LESS risk than than straight man who goes out and fucks every girl who will put out.

[Mixxster]

28. I'm a woman who donates every 2 months.

They also ask if you've:

* had sex with anyone who's received blood or blood products

* had sex with anyone who had sex for money or drugs or if you ever had sex for money or drugs

* had sex with men from certain countries

* had sex with a man who's had sex with another man even once since 19 something

* had anything pierced in the last year

* been in prison (not sure of the time frame)

Etc., etc.

[Richard D]

15. You're not alone . . .

. . . for years you couldn't donate blood if you had received acupucture.

[davidinalameda]

17. no

this is one of the most myopic rules that I've ever heard of

it assumes that just because you're gay or have had sex with a man, you're infected

[sundog]

19. Does that make closeted blood a-ok?

:eyes:

:wtf:

[davidinalameda]

20. sure

they're lying to themselves so they might as well lie to the Red Cross

[justin899]

21. Now the FDA wants to ban gay men as sperm donors

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7749977/

I guess some ignorant putz will jump up and defend the FDA on this policy too :grr:

[arwalden]

22. Astounding...

... I suppose the added "benefit" is that they can decrease the likelihood that the gay-gene will be passed on, eh?

[MsUnderstood]

24. I think the problem is the wording of the question, not the intent

The intent is not to waste time, material, staff and other valueable resources on donors who will are high risk. High risk donors are those who had unprotected sex since 1977, not just gay men.

Knowing that, the question should be "Have you had sex without using a condom with more than 1 person since 1977" and everyone who answers yes should be banned from giving blood because. . .as all of us paying attention in Sex Ed class should recall. . .that ANY uprotected sex can transmit the disease.

Or if we really want to limit to those who are really high risk, lets get more specific on the question, "In sex, are you a pitcher or catcher?" Cause gay or straight, the catcher is the one who is gonna get the disease.

Seriously, don't play the "it is for the greater protection of everyone" while all these straight people go through the process after having unprotected sex in the last 25 years.

[dsc]

25. I give blood regularly

I do lie to do so. I haven't had sex in a very, very long time and have been tested since then for HIV and thus know, not think, but know, I don't have the virus. Several things need to be pointed out here.

First, women are asked about their sexual histories too. They are asked if they have sex for money or have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man.

Second, several other groups are also eliminated.

That said, the rules really do need redrafted. It is sheer lunacy to reject me as a donor, and of O negative blood at that, when there is no way I could have HIV. I would be very willing to answer a more exansive questionaire to aleviate the concerns of people getting the blood. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask if a person has had sex with a male since having had a negative test for HIV. A blanket rejection actually costs lives given how many blood emergencies we have. When I lived in Ohio I was literally called on the day I became able to donate again after a donation. That is how necessary my blood is.

[Chovexani]

31. This is bigotry disguised as policy

And it's costing lives. It's risky sexual behaviors that spread HIV, and that's something people of all orientations engage in.

I can't donate blood anyway (I'm anemic), but under these rules I would be barred from giving blood...I'm a female who has had a couple of out bi boyfriends. Never mind the fact I never had unprotected sex with either of them, and I was tested (so were they--negative).

It's ridiculous and counterproductive. Not to mention the fact that it just perpetuates stereotypes (bi men = disease carriers to the female population, etc.). Under that logic, since a majority of HIV+ women in the US are black, all the women in my family should be barred. :eyes:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. HIV infections are rising the most in African-American women

To use the same principles would mean... banning African-Americans from giving blood?

It's discrimination, either way.

[NMMNG]

33. No

The ban is pure bigotry. Why should a gay man automatically be assumed to be an HIV risk over a straight man or any woman? A gay man could easily have been in a monagamous relationship for 10 years, while the straight woman donor on the cot beside him could have screwed 30 guys in the past year without using protection.

The ban is bull.

[allfreeornonefree]

34. I agree Gays should be able to donate

and NO every pint isn't tested. I'm straight and my guess is untested HIV+ heterosexuals are a much bigger danger.