HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Blood bank in Florida sti...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:50 PM

 

Blood bank in Florida still turning away gay donors after terrorist attack

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/12/11912020/oneblood-blood-donation-orlando

It's more difficult to donate blood as a gay man in Florida than to buy an assault rifle with no questions asked. Following an attack on on a gay nightclub in Orlando that killed 50 people and wounded scores of others last night, Mic and others reported that blood bank OneBlood would be "accepting all donors" — crucially, including gay men. That's a big deal, since the official recommendation of the federal Food and Drug Administration is to turn away gay men from blood donations if they've had sex in the past year. However, the blood bank later said those reports were false, and that "all FDA guidelines remain in effect."

The FDA only lifted the total recommended ban on donations from gay men last December, after the policy has been in place since 1983, when the AIDS epidemic was becoming a national panic. "We have taken great care to ensure this policy revision is backed by sound science and continues to protect our blood supply," the FDA's acting commissioner said at the time. Still, the new guidance is discriminatory — and immensely hurtful to survivors who are unable to help their own community after being attacked.

The 12-month limit on donations from gay men is an international standard, but it will still prevent lots of men from donating blood. However, the FDA's policy is guidance that local and private bodies aren't required to follow. As The Washington Post reported, the blood bank's guidelines haven't even caught up to the FDA's most recent standard, meaning it's still turning away all gay men from donating.


86 replies, 3807 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply Blood bank in Florida still turning away gay donors after terrorist attack (Original post)
KamaAina Jun 2016 OP
underpants Jun 2016 #1
whatthehey Jun 2016 #24
Demonaut Jun 2016 #38
whatthehey Jun 2016 #52
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #2
cwydro Jun 2016 #4
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #5
uppityperson Jun 2016 #11
Post removed Jun 2016 #13
uppityperson Jun 2016 #15
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #19
uppityperson Jun 2016 #20
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #28
uppityperson Jun 2016 #29
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #34
uppityperson Jun 2016 #35
Yo_Mama Jun 2016 #78
uppityperson Jun 2016 #79
Yo_Mama Jun 2016 #80
uppityperson Jun 2016 #82
Yo_Mama Jun 2016 #83
uppityperson Jun 2016 #84
jwirr Jun 2016 #17
TexasBushwhacker Jun 2016 #53
840high Jun 2016 #59
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #3
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #6
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #7
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #10
uppityperson Jun 2016 #12
CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2016 #14
uppityperson Jun 2016 #16
ag_dude Jun 2016 #21
uppityperson Jun 2016 #25
ag_dude Jun 2016 #26
uppityperson Jun 2016 #27
ag_dude Jun 2016 #31
uppityperson Jun 2016 #43
cwydro Jun 2016 #8
840high Jun 2016 #60
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #9
uppityperson Jun 2016 #18
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #44
uppityperson Jun 2016 #46
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #48
uppityperson Jun 2016 #51
uppityperson Jun 2016 #86
JackBeck Jun 2016 #64
JackBeck Jun 2016 #63
ag_dude Jun 2016 #23
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #36
ag_dude Jun 2016 #39
uppityperson Jun 2016 #40
ag_dude Jun 2016 #41
uppityperson Jun 2016 #45
ag_dude Jun 2016 #47
uppityperson Jun 2016 #50
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #42
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #30
Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #37
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #61
uppityperson Jun 2016 #62
TacoD Jun 2016 #22
Glassunion Jun 2016 #32
ag_dude Jun 2016 #33
uppityperson Jun 2016 #49
uppityperson Jun 2016 #54
Glassunion Jun 2016 #55
uppityperson Jun 2016 #56
Glassunion Jun 2016 #57
uppityperson Jun 2016 #58
OriginalGeek Jun 2016 #69
uppityperson Jun 2016 #72
ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #65
uppityperson Jun 2016 #66
dembotoz Jun 2016 #67
uppityperson Jun 2016 #68
ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #70
uppityperson Jun 2016 #71
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #74
uppityperson Jun 2016 #75
dembotoz Jun 2016 #73
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #77
Yo_Mama Jun 2016 #76
TexasBushwhacker Jun 2016 #81
JackBeck Jun 2016 #85

Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:55 PM

1. I can't donate because I lived in Europe (US Army) for more than three months.

Mad cow concern.

This is ridiculous. They need the blood let everyone donate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:50 AM

24. Me too - studied in the UK for a few years

Even though to my knowledge there has been no transfusion linked JCD transmission, the blissninnies refuse blood from anyone who has spent more than a few days in Europe, regardless of whether they came into contact with cattle or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:11 PM

38. until there is link, JCD is incurable and pretty much untreatable

unlike HIV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:01 PM

52. And yet people in the UK are not dropping like flies when they get blood transfusions

Since they are still donating blood to each other happily enough after living there decades, how much of a risk is having been there a couple of years to the US blood supply? Tiny risks generally do not warrant universal prohibition. I used to be a frequent blood donor before the CJD scare. They still keep bugging me for more because I have an unusualish blood type (A-) and it's such a shame to say no to the easiest way to save lives because of such an improbable risk. Nobody seems to have died from the 30-some donations I made before the ban (but after my UK stay). Why would they fie from the next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:08 PM

2. I used to work for the Red Cross in their blood bank. Let me see if I can explain their stand.

There are many, many tests to discover diseases in the blood.

But they are not perfect. Diseases can slip through undetected and then the sick patient getting that blood is infected.

Is there anyone who does not understand this?

How would you like to be that sick person made suddenly worse by blood that has a disease? I sure wouldn't. I would be suing the Red Cross, the hospital and anyone else I could think of if that happened to me.

You can say that their stand is discriminatory, and it is. But it is meant to protect the patient.

OK, flame away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:18 PM

4. Thank you Peggy.

You said it way better than I ever could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:19 PM

5. Thank YOU, my dear cwydro...

For letting me know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:29 PM

11. Why is a person more apt to have a blood borne disease because they are gay?

Yes, it is discriminatory and has no backing in any scientific reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #11)


Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:49 PM

15. Wrong. You say no gay man should be allowed to donate blood, where heteros can, because some

gay men may have anal sex? Regardless of whether or not they are in a committed relationship or having sex with random people of unknown HIV status? Regardless of whether or not they have had a negative HIV test 6 months prior and no sex of any kind since? Regardless of whether or not they have anal sex? Regardless of whether or not they use condoms? Regardless of what sort of sex they have and with whom, or if any at all?

And heterosexual men and women aren't "apt to have it because of the way they have sex"?

Regardless of whether or not they are in a committed relationship or having sex with random people whose HIV status is unknown. Regardless of what sort of sex they have (hint, anal is commoner than you think)? Regardless of condoms never being used? Regardless of whether or not they have had a HIV test of any sort?

I am appalled because this is the thinking that was prevalent in the 80's and 90's, thought DUers had educated themselves past this.

Yes, HIV is transmitted by sex, but to exclude all gay men "because of the way they have sex" is just wrong. Vaginal sex is way it is spread, the reason it has spread so far in many parts of the world. Shared needles is a way it is spread. Pregnant women to fetus.

To ban all gay men from donating blood because "the way they have sex", meaning not using a condom receptive anal intercourse with a person of unknown HIV status is just plain wrong.

I speak as a nurse who has done HIV prevention education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:00 PM

19. I was a nurse too, but not specialized in HIV prevention.

I spoke from what I knew. Obviously, I am behind the times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:10 PM

20. I went to a presentation in early 80's given by Robert Gallo on HTLV-III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo

It was a scary time, no one knew what was happening and too many bad policies were allowed to exist, then too many bad ones continued.

Excluding men from donating blood due to their sexual orientation is one of them. Not excluding people who did not fit the "3 H's" was another (homosexual, heroin user,-IV Haitian) because HIV is carried by many people not in those categories.

It contributed so much to homophobia, that "special" gay blood that makes them risky to be around and don't you know it's all their fault anyway, praise the lord. That last part is angry sarcasm, I have heard too much of that over the years, sorry. That was a common feeling during the Raygun yrs.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:55 AM

28. Gay men make up 2% of the polulation and 60% of HIV cases

 

They are a higher risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:58 AM

29. ONLY if they engage is risky actions. A heterosexual woman who has unprotected intercourse is much

more likely to get HIV than a gay man who doesn't.

It is not their sexual orientation but their exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:17 PM

34. Thats not how risk pools work

 

I cant donate for life due to living in Europe during the mad cow outbreak.

I represent a higher risk even though I havent been to Europe in 10 years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:28 PM

35. Prions, now there's a really scary thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:44 PM

78. Largely because of history - but the number of new HIV infections are sharply higher among men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

This is not discriminatory because it is based on observed reality, combined with the inability of current tests to discover all infections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #78)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:50 PM

79. Then ban men. For real though, ban anyone, any gender, any orientation, who has participated in

risky behaviors like anal sex with someone of + or unknown HIV status. Don't ban people of a gender of orientation if they have not participated in such actions. Make the ban about risky actions, not gender, not orientation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #79)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:31 PM

80. There are two problems with that approach.

One is that many individuals with risky behaviors are in denial about them. Sometimes they have a coincident drug/alcohol problem and don't even quite KNOW about them.

The second is that it is not just risky behavior that defines risk. It is also the infection status of the population with which the behavior occurs.

It is not anal sex that gives you HIV, or hepatitis, or syphilis, etc. It is unprotected anal sex with someone who is already infected.

Because the infection rate in the MSM population is so much higher, delineating purely on the basis of sexual behavior would not provide the same risk reduction as delineating on population-at-risk and risky behavior.

In the future, if current risk reduction techniques succeed, your suggested approach may well be the best. Right now, it would cause more transmissions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #80)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:20 PM

82. How does banning someone who doesn't engage in risky behavior make any sense?

If you don't engage in risky actions, why should you be banned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #82)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:10 PM

83. "Deferred" is the terminology. If people were robots, you'd be right.

But they are not. Nor can they actually tell how risky their behavior is, because they are not sleeping with robots.

An individual may be in a relationship the individual believes is monogamous, but that may not be true. The individual may be in denial about his/her own risky behavior.

So in effect what they are relying on are first and foremost,
1) testing: which will fail to detect several early infections of blood-borne diseases,
2) risk screening: MSM are hardly the only risk categories deferred, this relies on accurate self-reporting, which fails,
3) population sifting,
4) exposure sifting (which works on both individual and population levels).

While no one of these techniques is sufficient, layering them has made the blood supply quite safe.

The MSM one year deferral approach worked in Australia, failed in Germany, but generally seems plausible.

You are fixated on risky behavior, but no individual can ever be sure about the actual risks of their sexual behavior. Most individuals of whatever sexual orientation will engage in unprotected sex at some point. So you can't use that. We can't just take blood donations from virgins.

If you don't use population risk sifting, you will have more infected and undetected blood in the supply pool, and more transmissions.

In terms of population/exposure screening, they are also sifting out the unknowables in which they do not feel they can assess risk. Like prion disease potential exposures.

This technique is hardly applied just to MSM, and it is behaviorally assessed. For example, individuals who have ever used non-prescription injectable drugs are still life-time deferred. This is a population with high risks for hepatitis and HIV, and by sifting out the entire population they are safer.

A similar population effect is involved in the Red Cross ban on hemochromatosis donors - they are screening them out not because they have an individual risk that's higher, but because they have a population risk that's higher (they are using blood donation as a disease treatment, and thus are more likely to donate when they should not).
http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic#med_cond


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:30 PM

84. "no individual can ever be sure about the actual risks of their sexual behavior"? Exactly.

That is my point, no individual. No matter their sexual orientation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:54 PM

17. I was unable to give because my whole family had hepatitis.

None of us can. Even today many years later.

However I thought that the red cross had lifted the ban recently on gays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:01 PM

53. I wasn't able to give for a year

Because my roommate had hepatitis, and no, we were not intimate. They are just very very careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:46 PM

59. Thia nurse thanks you for this post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:10 PM

3. wow...wtf... really stupid policy in the first place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:20 PM

6. Did you read my post #2? It explains the policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:24 PM

7. I don't see empirically being gay increases the chances of someone getting tainted blood...

.... is there any data on that?

tia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:27 PM

10. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Do you mean that gay people do not ordinarily have blood that could be diseased?

The Aids virus was commonly found in their blood and it is passed through transfusions, along with other methods. That is why they have not been allowed to give.

I hope that helps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:30 PM

12. Why would a gay person be any more likely to have a blood borne disease? How does screening by

sexual orientation prevent a blood borne disease?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:35 PM

14. See post #13.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:50 PM

16. See post #15 and #9. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:42 AM

21. If there were another demographic that is ~40x more likely to have HIV...

...and you were responsible for the safety of the blood supply, what would you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:17 AM

25. Narrow down the demographic. And 40X is very inaccurate.

Please show me a link with the 40 times you say as I've not seen that

These show male/female ratio is 4:1. Maybe all men should be banned. And heterosexual women since heterosexual sex if the main way when get it.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/women/
Around 1 in 4 people living with HIV in the United States are women.
Most new HIV diagnoses in women are attributed to heterosexual sex.
(Clip)

Women made up 19% (8,328) of the estimated 44,073 new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2014. Of these, 87% (7,242) were attributed to heterosexual sex, and 13% (1,045) were attributed to injection drug use.



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/men/
Men accounted for 76% of all adults and adolescents living with HIV infection at the end of 2010 in the United States


A man is not, merely by being gay, 40X more likely to have HIV. It is exposure that increases risk. Reread my post, educate yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:31 AM

26. 40x is actually lower than the CDC cited estimates

National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed each year on September 27 to focus on the disproportionate effects of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2007, the estimated HIV diagnosis rate among MSM was 692 per 100,000, which was 44 to 86 times the rate for other men and 40 to 77 times the rate for women (1).


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/mm5937.pdf

The restriction is based on statistics, science, and concern for the blood supply not bigotry.

How old are you? I've found that most people who think it's just a bigotry issue weren't around in the 80s to see how the HIV epidemic and the Ryan White situation sent shock waves through the entire idea of blood donation.

edit:forum code

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:50 AM

27. I am old enough to have worked as a nurse before HIV, and to understand statistics.

I was around before universal precautions, exposing myself to gods knows what. I got to hear Gallo speak in the early 80s. I've tested and treated and watched sicken and die too many with HIV, obtained from many sources, including transfusions.

I understand well trying to keep the blood supply safe, but also understand how discriminatory this this is.

I understand those 3 types of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Narrow down the demographic. Risky behavior, including my getting blood n myself while working, women who are trying to survive by having unprotected vaginal sex, gay men having unprotected sex, is the problem. Merely being of 1 sexual orientation is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:01 PM

31. If you're saying the ban should be dropped for lesbians, I agree

The MSM demographic is most certainly the one where the disproportionate risk is.

It's been two months since I've donated but for some reason I thought the form asks "If you are a male have you had sexual contact with another male (even once) in the past year?".

If you're arguing that men who have sex with men should be allowed to donate despite the increased risk to the blood supply, I disagree strongly. That's not bigotry, any demographic that has such a high rate of HIV would be prohibited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:31 PM

43. The op says local blood banks requirements have not caught up with FDA ones. At minimum, they should

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:26 PM

8. No, it wasn't a stupid policy.

I'm a gay woman who donated blood during the AIDS epidemic when no one knew what was happening.

The policy is not discriminatory. The policy was to SAVE LIVES.

Do you remember Ryan White?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:47 PM

60. No - it's not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:27 PM

9. Ironic bigotry.

The idea that gay people have "tainted blood" is one reason homophobia is still so prevalent. It makes gay people, especially gay and bi men seem "diseased". The rule is antiquated and bigoted as are the defenses of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:56 PM

18. Yup. It is amazing that people still defend having this policy today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:33 PM

44. Some poeple are gold medalist gymnasts when it comes to protecting bigotry.

I am not surprised to see it still in full swing, including ABSURB conclusions about what gay men do sexually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:37 PM

46. I don't know, is it even safe to reply to you? I might catch them gay cooties at 40X

Severe sarcasm, on the off chance this is alerted on.

I keep thinking people should be better educated and have to remember to be patient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:46 PM

48. LMGAO!

(laughing my gay ass off)



I am always astonished how little some actually know about gay people. I am also irritated how many are trying to make excuses and misdirect or, rather, redirect to other issues rather than focusing on us, the GLBT community and the homophobia we face. This took place in a state where it is LEGAL to discriminate against LGBT in housing and employment. An act of terrorism? A hate crime? Why is it so damn difficult for people to comprehend it can be both?!

ETA: You may want to use this...

Mythbusting: What Gay Men Really Do In Bed
The results: Despite the popular perception, "sexual behaviors involving the anus were least common," researchers found. Around 75 percent of participants reported kissing their partners, giving oral sex, and/or receiving oral sex in their most recent sexual encounters. By contrast, only 36 percent of men reporting receiving anal sex and 34 percent of men reporting giving it. Half of participants who engaged in anal sex employed a condom. The most common series of activities in the encounter—reported by 16 percent of men—involved "holding their partner romantically, kissing partner on mouth, solo masturbation, masturbating partner, masturbation by partner, and genital–genital contact."

New Study Of Gay And Bi Men’s Sexual Behavior Has Implications For Health Advocacy
Of all sexual behaviors that men reported occurring during their last sexual event, those involving the anus were the least common [less than 40 percent]. There is certainly a misguided belief that ‘gay sex equals anal sex,’ which is simply untrue much of the time.


You may also find this to be useful:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:00 PM

51. Thanks for the links about What Gay Men Really Do In Bed

I will bookmark and use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:15 PM

86. I found an article on women and anal sex, for someone else on another thread on same topic

http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5489/rise-in-anal-sex-statistics/
(clip)The precis: We're all having more sex, and more kinds of sex than ever before, and we're getting sexually active at younger ages. But the "big story," as Slate writer William Saletan puts it, is anal sex! In 1992, a similar survey found that 16 percent of women aged 18-24 had tried it. Now the number is more like 40 percent. And in 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33 percent. Now it's 46.

Saletan goes on to say: "The last time I looked at the anal sex data, I figured that most women who reported having done it meant they'd tried it just once. I was wrong. … One-third of these women say they've done it in the last month. Among all women surveyed, the number who reported anal sex in their most recent sexual encounter was three percent to four percent. That's a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they're probably understating the truth."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:18 PM

64. I knew what I would find in this thread before I even clicked on it.

And I'm not surprised in the least bit that some of the very same folks are still spreading their bullshit after being told repeatedly for over a decade now that their comments are way off base.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:15 PM

63. And it is being done by folks in this thread who have been told repeatedly for over a decade

that defending this policy is homophobic and perpetuates stigma not only against those who are living with HIV but members of the LGBT community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:48 AM

23. Gay people don't have 'tainted blood'

...any more than the other dozen disqualifiers for blood donation do.

They don't let you donate if you've had sex with a prostitute recently or been in certain countries for more than a set amount of time.

If there were another demographic where it's known (not just bigotted opinion, CDC stats) that they are HIV positive at a rate 40+ times others, what would you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:59 PM

36. What you fail to understand is the risk.

Gay men are more at risk if they engage in anal activity; news flash, not all of us do. The ban is antiquated and bigoted because it bans gay men, not behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:22 PM

39. No, it doesnt. You are making stuff up.

The ban, at least the FDA ban, is on men who have had sex with men in the past year.

...just like straight men who have had sex with prostitutes, regardless of what type of sex.

The ban is about risk, not bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:26 PM

40. Do you understand that not all sex between men involves anal? That's not making things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:28 PM

41. Yes I do, where are your stats?

The 40-80 X increased risk among the MSM population is a statistic from the CDC. Do you have statistics that indicate which type makes a difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:33 PM

45. Here you go. They don't have mutual masturbation, since that's negligible risk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:44 PM

47. That's not a population risk based on sexual activity.

The population risk for the demographic of men who have sex with men finds they are HIV positive at a rate that is more than 40 times that of the general population.

Where is the similar number for that granularized down to each sex act?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:57 PM

50. Do you think there is a difference because of sexual orientation for any action?



That link lists Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source, by Exposure Act.

Receptive anal intercourse is risky no matter what gendeor o orientation. Wear condoms, know your partner's HIV status, and your own.

Oral is low risk, regardless of gender or orientation. Masturbation is low enough to not warrant a mention.

There is nothing intrinsically special about being gay that makes someone more likely to get HIV. It's ALL about actions, behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:30 PM

42. I am not making anything up.

The ban also doesn't take in account men who are involved with the same man. The rationale for the prostitution is because or unknown status and unknown protection. The ban should be about risk factors, not people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:00 PM

30. Gay people are at a higher risk for HIV

 

Thats not bigotry, that atatistics.

I cant donate because I lived in Europe during Mad cow.

Its cheaper to ban me for life than to test for Mad cow.

Im fine with that. I want the blood supply to be safe for everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:01 PM

37. They are at higher risk based on certain activities, not because of who we are.

The ban needs to be re-evaluated. Testing has changed, and it needs to be reflected. If you are fine with lifetime ban, that is your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:58 PM

61. Until recently there was no test for CJD

 

I want the blood supply the be safe.

I have risk factors for it, so I cant donate.

Testing has changed, but those test are more expensive and have not been adopted 100% yet. It will take time and money for everybody to get up to date.

Safe blood is more important than political corectness.

The fact is gay men are in a higher risk group. I realize that if you are married with a tested partner your risk is near 0.

I haven't been to Europe in 20 years. My risk for CJD is near 0, but Im in a high risk group, and Ill accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:05 PM

62. Anyone who participates in risky behavior is in a high risk group regardless of gender or orientatio

Men are in a higher risk group than women. Should they be banned from donating?

People of color are in a higher risk group than whities. Should they be banned?

No. Those who engage in high risk behavior, actions, are in a high risk group and should be banned.

Banning all gay men does not make blood safer. Banning anyone who engages in risky actions does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:46 AM

22. "limit on donations from gay men is an international standard" Really? Troubling if true (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:09 PM

32. Direct your anger appropriately.

The lifetime ban is antiquated and needs to be revisited.

It is not the policy of the Red Cross, nor is it the policy of blood banks. They have to abide by FDA rules. These particular FDA rules are governed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is that department that has refused to revise the rules.

These old rules were in place due to the nature of testing at the time. Back the the virus was only detectable by the body's response when it produced high levels of antibodies. However these usually took about 45 or so days before they were detectable. Newer test available today can detect the virus (99.9% certainty) within about 7 to 10 days after infection.

The lifetime ban is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:14 PM

33. The lifetime ban from the FDA was changed last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/health/fda-gay-men-blood-donation-changes/

As far as the FDA is concerned, it's only gay men who have been sexually active in the past year now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ag_dude (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:47 PM

49. In the op, it states this...


The 12-month limit on donations from gay men is an international standard, but it will still prevent lots of men from donating blood. However, the FDA's policy is guidance that local and private bodies aren't required to follow. As The Washington Post reported, the blood bank's guidelines haven't even caught up to the FDA's most recent standard, meaning it's still turning away all gay men from donating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:08 PM

54. In the op, it states this...

owever, the FDA's policy is guidance that local and private bodies aren't required to follow. As The Washington Post reported, the blood bank's guidelines haven't even caught up to the FDA's most recent standard, meaning it's still turning away all gay men from donating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:14 PM

55. I realize my error

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:15 PM

56. I didn't know they could still do that either.

It's all too much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:21 PM

57. I was still using an old map, as I am still asked when I donate.

I made the assumption the FDA was still doing their thing.

Personally I think it should be a flat 30 days after any "risky" behavior for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:23 PM

58. Yup, make it about risky behavior for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:27 PM

69. Oneblood in Florida does follow FDA guidelines

They don't turn away gay men who have been sexually inactive for a year. It's a step in the right direction. It used to be a lifetime ban. Now it's only a year deferral. Some day, equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OriginalGeek (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:06 PM

72. Thank you, I just looked at the article and saw the update.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:23 PM

65. I'm not going to defend the policy but it's not motivated by bigotry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men

Countries like Canada, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark all have similar policies. The largest European country that doesn't: Russia. Yeah I sure wouldn't consider Russia more progressive on gay rights than the aforementioned countries.

As to if it IS a good policy I'll just state that I'm not a medical doctor or someone qualified to speak on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #65)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:27 PM

66. In the op, it states this...

However, the FDA's policy is guidance that local and private bodies aren't required to follow. As The Washington Post reported, the blood bank's guidelines haven't even caught up to the FDA's most recent standard, meaning it's still turning away all gay men from donating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:11 PM

67. as the husband of a leukemia pateint who died in the mid 80s

people who are given blood are generally not doing well

blood centers are crazy stupid careful to make sure that the patient who needs blood does not get sicker because of the blood.

my wife got buckets and buckets of blood. towards the end of her life, when the transfusion transmissions of aids was becoming more and more of a crisis it was sort of a crazy time on the oncology floor. she was too busy dying from leukemia to also get aids......

the blood supply has to be safe and if they go overboard to ensure that...ok by me.

donated again a couple weeks back and now they are nervous about zika.......

so folks rejected for blood....ok do something else.
donate some cash, volunteer somewhere, build a memorial, educate your friends, plant a tree.

if i found i was unable to donate anymore i would just find another way to honor my dear dear departed wife

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dembotoz (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:15 PM

68. Why should someone who engages in no risky behavior be banned only because of their orientation?

It seems that period should be banned because of their behavior, regardless of their gender or orientation. Banning no risk people is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:51 PM

70. That is what's happening here

Any male who has engaged in sex with another male in the past 12 months is deferred. That's behavior and it's what defers you. Simply being of an orientation does not result in deferral.

People can also be deferred for having tattoos or piercings recently. That's not bigotry against tattooed or pierced people, just a labeling of it as risky behavior.

Is male/male sex a behavior by itself that's so risky it should result in deferral? I am not qualified to answer that.

Edit: I can understand why this policy makes so many uncomfortable and I would put myself as someone who isn't a huge fan either. But as I noted above, it's not just the US, plenty of countries with strong records on GLBT issues have the same or even stricter policies. Russia, hardly a bastion of GLBT rights does not. This isn't an issue where politics should come into play at all, it's about public health and nothing more, and nothing else should be the consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:01 PM

71. For the question of "male/male sex" being so risky, like m/f sex, it depends on what is done

BtA has a good post http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7908615

Here's a list of risk factors. They apply equally to men and women, except for vaginal and penile. And yes, anal intercourse is common with heterosexual women though some do not, like some gay men do not. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimates/riskbehaviors.html

ETA, ban anyone who has had unprotected anal sex with someone HIV + or unknown HIV status within last 6 months. Banning a gay man for having had oral sex and not banning women for having anal sex is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:35 PM

74. Gay men have AIDS at a rate 44x the rate of heterosexual men.

 

Source: CDC.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

People who engage in MSM are 44x more likely to have aids.

So a woman having anal sex is 44x less likely that her partner has aids, compared to the partner engaging in MSM sex.

Obviously if everyone above had no STDs the chance for infection is 0. But a lot of people dont know they have AIDS.

So I would argue that MSM sex is much more risky than a male having anal sex with a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #74)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:37 PM

75. We've already addressed this upthread. Do you know the difference between HIV and AIDS? between

being HIV + and having AIDS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dembotoz (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:15 PM

73. if you can not donate blood.. ,.do something else

actually i do not like to go to the big blood drives.

i have small hidden veins...not like a beer tapper.....

big drives the vampires get overworked and tired.

regular donation.....the are more on top of the game and my arm suffers less....
but that is just me....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dembotoz (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:43 PM

77. I'm running a drive in Lake Country next Thursday if you're interested.

We always have a great crew, I make sure of that. PM me if you're interested!!!

Also, always drink a TON of water the day before and of your donation, that'll help those veins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:42 PM

76. Things that are based on objective realities are not discriminatory

The 12 month MSM standard makes scientific sense, because the blood testing performed for certain diseases has a "window" during which it is not detectable.

Has there ever been a transmission from blood taken in the "window" in the US? Yes, there has been.

If there is an objective reason for differential treatment, it is not discrimination. For example, it is gross discrimination to deny a blind or sight-limited person access to most jobs/professions, but not discriminatory to deny a driving license and access to professions/occupations that require one.

Some quite scientific stuff about this:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00040546.htm

The facts show that there is a sharply higher risk of new infections in MSM than in the general population. Exclusions for 12 months ensure that "missed" infected blood doesn't get into the donation pool. It's a risk mitigation measure only, and it is statistically sound:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

Note that the scientific basis for this exclusion may change in the future, and it will be followed by a change in the recommendations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #76)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:33 PM

81. Yup and there are many things that can exclude you

If you have had/done any of these in the past year you cannot donate blood.

Used IV drugs or had sex with someone who has.

Had sex with someone for money or drugs or had sex with someone who has.

Gotten a tattoo.

Been in jail.

Traveled overseas.

And yes, being a male having sex with a male or being a female who has had sex with a MSM.

it's about protecting the blood supply. I couldn't give blood for a year after living with a platonic roommate who had Hepatitis C. Keep in mind that most whole blood is broken down and stored as its 3 components - red blood cells, plasma and platelets. A single infected donation could infect 3 people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Original post)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:40 PM

85. Kicked so that folks can see what thinly veiled animus towards the LGBT community looks like.

It's as clear as day to me that there are some folks here who continue to exhibit discomfort with, in particular, gay men donating blood, even though donated blood goes through a battery of tests before it becomes available for transfusions.

This type of bigotry, despite years of countless posters trying to dissuade them of this notion, continues once again in this thread and the repeat offenders need to be held accountable for this nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread