Gay men seek right to donate blood

[OhioChick]

Monday October 3, 2011 9:51 AM

Gay men who want to donate blood have been turned away for almost 30 years.

A single sexual experience with another man is grounds for what blood banks call “lifetime deferral.”

The policy is set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has been under increasing pressure in recent years to change the rule. The restriction has even prompted some to boycott blood drives in support of friends and loved ones who aren’t allowed to give.

In Columbus, people advocating change have decided to work with the American Red Cross of Central Ohio in an effort to both boost donations and protest the policy.

More: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/03/gay-men-seek-right-to-donate-blood.html

[MADem]

1. I thought they "fixed" this? nt

[PeaceNikki]

4. That was in the UK and only celibate gays.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/15/britain-lifts-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-could-the-u-s-be-far-behind/

[demosincebirth]

9. Is there a questionaire that asks if your're gay when you give blood?

[PeaceNikki]

12. Yes. It also asks if you've had sex with a man who has had gay sex.

[customerserviceguy]

29. They also ask if you've ever exchanged money for sex

I about knocked one of them off the chair when I asked, "Does that include child support?"

[msanthrope]

38. That was very bad of you. But I laughed...nt

[joshcryer]

91. LOL, damn.

That's jacked up. :P

[dsc]

94. yeah but that question only defers you for a year

the actual question is in the last year have you exchanged money for sex.

[customerserviceguy]

96. Ok, I don't recall them qualifying it with a one year period

but if it does, it ruins my joke, because the last exchange of CS took place ten years ago...

In any case, I just donated blood last month after a several year hiatus, and I was surprised that they still consider gay men taboo, what with all the tests we have these days. Interesting, isn't it, that they were freely allowed to shed their blood on a battlefield before they were allowed to donate it peacefully as a donation to preserve life.

[quinnox]

2. don't think this is a great idea

unless they can be 100% sure scientifically that the blood isn't infected by aids, then it seems like a big risk to use potentially lethal blood in patients.

[PeaceNikki]

3. They can say that with as much certainty about "gay blood" as "straight blood"

[quinnox]

6. Well, I'm sure there are good scientific reasons for the ban

and personally I would not want blood transfused into my body that might have the aids virus. Even a tiny bit of risk of this would be unacceptable to me.

I support this policy.

[PeaceNikki]

11. Hetero blood has a tiny risk, too, ya know?

Blood services commonly justify their bans against MSM using the statistically high prevalence of HIV and hepatitis of MSM in population studies. The last statistical and epidemiological review into blood service policy in the UK found that if the ban on MSM donating blood were to be lifted, the risk of HIV entering blood stocks would increase by 500%. This brings into question the effectiveness of blood testing services of all blood donors. The review also found that if the ban was changed to only exclude men who have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months, the increase would still be roughly 60%.<34><35> Under the soon-to-be-implemented ten year deferral policy, risk to the blood supply is expected to increase by 2%.<32>


Objections to the restrictions are generally based on the idea that improvements in testing and other safeguards have reduced the risk from transfusion transmitted HIV to an acceptable level. Blood shortages are common, and critics of the policies point out that excluding healthy donors only makes the problem worse. "Ideal" inventories are at least a three day supply, but many blood centers struggle to meet this demand.<36>
Other criticism stems from the fact that the ban is a blanket ban encompassing all men who have had sex with another man, even once during their lifetime. Critics claim that a promiscuous heterosexual male is a higher-risk donor than a gay or bisexual man in a monogamous relationship, for example a civil partnership in the United Kingdom, but the former will usually be allowed to donate blood. Furthermore, other high-risk activities such as paying (or being paid) for sex have a set deferral period before the donor is allowed to donate blood, whereas MSM donors are deferred indefinitely. In the US, for example, potential donors that are MSM may never donate, but those who have engaged in being paid for sex or have ever injected non-medical drugs are also deferred indefinitely. Their sexual partners, including those that pay for sex, are deferred for twelve months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy#Reasoning_for_the_restrictions

[TriMera]

13. Then you had better not get a blood transfusion. You know,

anybody can have AIDS. The ban was instituted long before they had reliable tests. Now, the tests are reliable and, I believe, all blood is tested. The ban is out-dated and discriminatory.

[PeaceNikki]

15. It's been policy since 1985 and yes, all blood is tested.

The ban is out-dated and discriminatory.

[TriMera]

18. Thank you. n/t

[w8liftinglady]

35. I agree- especially since there are blood-borne diseases...

equally as harmful as HIV that are shared equally by all sexual and racial groups.
The blood tests have progressed immensely.

[Yo_Mama]

86. But the tests aren't 100% reliable

They are very very good, but they are significantly less than 100% reliable. They can easily miss closely after infection, and in some few persons, they miss later after infection.

So since they aren't 100% reliable, they try to sort out population groups who have significantly higher risk than the average and exclude those groups from blood donation.

If you used a questionnaire detailed enough to theoretically assess individual risk, it would fail in practice because some individuals will not report their behavior accurately.

There are a lot of detailed calculations that go into making these decisions. The last round of decision-making at the FDA was in 2006, and here is the 398 page archive.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/TranscriptsMinutes/UCM054430.pdf

[PeaceNikki]

87. NO test is 100% accurate.

When two tests are combined, the chance of getting an inaccurate result is less than 0.1%

Antibody tests are extremely accurate when it comes to detecting the presence of HIV antibodies. ELISA tests are very sensitive and so will detect very small amounts of HIV antibody. This high level of sensitivity however, means that their specificity (ability to distinguish HIV antibodies from other antibodies) is slightly lowered. There is therefore a very small chance that a result could come back as ‘false positive’.

http://www.avert.org/testing.htm

And also as I said upthread, nobody is advocating not screening. Risk factors for people of all sexual orientation need to be weighed. The "window" exists for everyone. Therefore monogamous gays and straights carry the same risk. Gays and straights that have been celibate for 2 years carry the same risk. The ban is a lifetime deferral for any man who has had gay sex since 1977. Archaic and horrifying.

[foreigncorrespondent]

48. Then...

...you really need to make allowances for yourself, because anyone's blood has potential risk for anything, not just gay blood, and certainly not just HIV. This policy is very homophobic.

[OhioChick]

7. You're absolutely right n/t

[jtrockville]

8. Exactly. EVERYONE should be ruled out with that criteria.

[seabeyond]

16. i would hope they do it with ALL blood seeing how a number of hetro also have/had aids

dontcha think?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[OhioChick]

20. Where are you getting this information from?????

[PeaceNikki]

21. Can you link us to "studies showing that gay men tend to be more promiscuous?

Even if you can, that wasn't the basis of the ban and only supports you're homophobic myth.

[quinnox]

23. Hmm, there seems to be a lot of politics around these studies

I looked on google, and its hard to find hard science studies in this area without a politics bias entering into the study.

Nevertheless, real life experience tells me that many men tend to be horny, and are ready to engage in risky sexual behavior.
Most men are not angles or careful I would say. I tend to have a dim view of men and their sexual habits I guess, speaking as a man.

[PeaceNikki]

24. Not politics, religion. That's the church pushing that meme.

Your "experience" is not data and your irrational fear of gay blood is ridiculous.

[quinnox]

27. I don't see how allowing the small percentage of gay men

who want to donate blood would make much of a difference in blood supplies anyhow. Its not like there would be a huge new influx of blood if this ban was lifted.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Way to move the goalposts. There is always a shortage; always a need.

And to justify outdated and discriminatory policies with this weird logic is terribly sad. You say gays are promiscuous, I say they are generous, giving and charitable and think we could use every pint possible.

I hope that you or someone you love never needs blood or blood products but if you do, I hope there is ample supply.

[quinnox]

31. I'm sure the supply will be there

and it will most likely not be infected because of sensible policies that protect the public health.

Damn, why are you busting my balls over this? I disagree with you on this, and you act like its the end of the freakin' world.

[PeaceNikki]

33. I care because am a blood drive coordinator and not a homophobe.

Homophobia and spreading of homophobic myths to support discriminatory policies pisses me off. I will "bust balls" on this as long as I draw breath.

[uppityperson]

66. yet you write above you hold a dim view of all men, so why single out gay men? Why not all men?

[quinnox]

70. yes, all men, and that includes gay men

I did make my statement referring to all men, and glad you noticed. About specifically gay men, well, that is what the thread is about.

[uppityperson]

65. Most men are not angles, I agree. However, everything else you write works for women also. AND

are you meaning that men should not donate blood? Or just gay men? Since you hold such a poor view of men in general, maybe all men should be banned, and anyone who has had sex with a man since they may have been exposed also.

[quinnox]

71. now you are just being sarcastic

I still like you though, uppityperson.

[uppityperson]

74. No, not being sarcastic. You hold men in a dim view, so ban all men. AND then anyone

who has had sex with a man since HIV can be transmitted that way. Are you saying that is untrue? Many women "tend to be horny, and are ready to engage in risky sexual behavior. Most (women) are not angles or careful I would say."

Not being sarcastic at all. Simply thinking through what you say and drawing logical conclusions.

[quinnox]

80. I don't know

if that is true of women to be honest. If you say so, then ok. I'm not a woman, but I thought its guys who are always super horny all the time and wanting to jump on anything that comes their way. I always thought women, in general, were more choosy and discriminating.

[uppityperson]

82. OK, I'll bite. If you basing this on your own experience...

Men, you, horny all the time, etc. Women, us, turning you down? Since you have written, based on your experience, was wondering if this is a logical conclusion.

sorry

[quinnox]

83. heh heh

I would prefer not to answer that. Anyway, do you have a facebook account? I might chat with you there about it.

[uppityperson]

84. Sorry. Happily married here.

damn, did it to you again.

[quinnox]

85. that doesn't mean

we couldn't be facebook friends. I'm new to facebook, and looking to make new friends there.

[seabeyond]

32. does it really matter when it comes to the safety of our blood. the risk is there.

they have the means to test. they do in fact test

it is an atrocious law. was from day one of the hysteria and certainly is 2 decades with education and awareness and means to test

[louslobbs]

42. How about a link to those studies so I can see where you are getting your information?. n/t

Lou

[Vanje]

46. He pulled it out of his

bigoted heterosexual ass.

[louslobbs]

62. lol, I think a lot of people get their information from that exact place. Thanks for the laugh. n/

Lou

[OhioChick]

47. "gay men tend to be more promiscuous?"

Guess you've never been on a college campus on a Friday night with a bunch of heterosexual kids at a keg party.

And college campuses have blood drives all the time.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. first...

that is hogwash. Second, let's say they are more promiscous- so what? All blood is screened- it either has the virus or it does not. The "more promiscuous" thing is nothing but Foundation For the Family trype.

[w8liftinglady]

22. agree- just like hepatitis

here are the results from The Centers For Disease Control



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. They do it, but there are flaws in the process.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. And how is it that they do not ask about heterosexual risk factors

They take blood without asking what kind of heterosexual activity, number of partners, none of it. How can that be safe? Lots of heterosexuals get HIV Next time you are in hospital, remember that. No questions but 'men with men'. Not 'have you had anal unprotected sex with dozens of opposite sex partners to earn crack money in the last week?'.
No, if you are straight you can shower off from a Roman orgy and slap in the donation needle. Hope that makes you just crave a transfusion!

[PeaceNikki]

26. They do, to a point. They ask about being paid for sex, IV drug use, tattoos, etc.

They do not, as you say, go into depth on heterosexual sex, but they do ask, despite what you say, about some other risk factors.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. Then they better screen out "straight" black men. Could be on the down-low, you know.

:sarcasm:

[fascisthunter]

50. yikes...

...you might want to reconsider that statement. Anyone can have aids, and targeting any specific group is the same as profiling and only reinforces ignorance of those groups.

[FreeState]

60. Blood is never infected with AIDS

It's HIV, but from your post it's obvious you know very little of what your taking about.

[Hosnon]

93. Homophobic to the extreme.

The tests are the same regardless of sexual orientation. Blood is blood.

[JackBeck]

95. The NY State AIDS Institute puts the probability of getting HIV infected blood at

2 out of every 1,000,000. It is statistically impossible to get any test to 100%, due to human error.

If you are uncomfortable with these numbers, than don't get a transfusion or organ transplant.

[JackBeck]

97. There are a battery of tests that donated blood must go through

before being introduced to the blood supply.

And like others have mentioned, you can't get blood infected with AIDS, since AIDS a diagnosis, not a germ. Your immune system doesn't fight AIDS, it produces antibodies to fight an HIV infection.

It is extremely rare that blood or organs that have HIV are introduced to the system, although the media loves to overreact when it happens, but this ban only furthers the stigma that people people with HIV are predominately gay men.

[_ed_]

123. Are you fucking serious?

Straight people don't get AIDS?

Beyond that, do you really think that they transfuse patients without testing the blood first?

I think your comment is more about homophobia than anything else.

[JuniperLea]

5. That's crazy...

They checked my blood for HIV and other things the last time I donated... I'm sure that's routine... or are they like Archy Bunker? Afraid he'll catch 'the gay' if he gets a 'gay' blood transfusion.

[PeaceNikki]

10. The policy was put in place when testing was not as advanced as it is now.

And many have been trying to lift it for years, including the American Red Cross.

[JuniperLea]

36. Fear drives stupidity to high places...

There's no reason for this. Anyone left supporting this ridiculousness has a screw loose and will be shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong!

[seabeyond]

14. i thought they had ended this. nt

[PeaceNikki]

17. That was in the UK and only celibate gays.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2048645&mesg_id=2048751

[seabeyond]

34. no fuckin way.... shameful. nt

[Abq_Sarah]

39. I'm not allowed to donate

Because I lived in the UK for two years in the mid 1980s. By restricting certain groups, you can reduce (but not eliminate) the chances the blood supplies will be contaminated. Protecting the blood supply is more important than my desire to donate blood.

[PeaceNikki]

40. Your deferral is VERY different.

There is no test for vCJD in humans that could be used to screen blood donors. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban of gay men unnecessary.

[Tesha]

41. Here's the CDC's data on new cases HIV infections for 2009.

As you look at the absolute numbers, please keep
in mind that MSM is a much smaller proportion of
the population than heterosexuals.



http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm

Perhaps easing the ban on MSM blood donation isn't
the best idea right now.

Tesha

[PeaceNikki]

43. You understand that we have fancy tests that can detect HIV now, right?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. You understand that they are not perfect?

[PeaceNikki]

56. So no one should donate blood?

The idea that a gay man, simply because he's had gay sex once since 1977, is more of a risk factor than my co-worker who has had 3 one-night stands in the past 4 weeks is stupid. Or that a monogamous gay couple who have been together for 20 years is a higher risk than the college guy sticking his wiener is whatever girl will have him is ludicrous. We should still weigh risks but the ban is outdated and discriminatory.

In 2006, the AABB, American Red Cross, and America's Blood Centers all supported a change from the current US policy of a lifetime deferral of MSM to one year since most recent contact. One model suggested that this change would result in one additional case of HIV transmitted by transfusion every 32.8 years. The AABB has suggested making this change since 1997.

Nothing is "perfect", Prof. Nothing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. Its called risk minimization and even the ARC and others have not made the case

that their is a shortage bad enough to justify increased risk, not matter how small it may be. I am under lifetime deferral, but without more justification, am good with where we are now.

First blood borne infection that gets past the testing and is traced to a gay male donor will set things back horribly, and not just for blood donation. You are also ignoring the legal suits that will surely follow. If you argue that the Feds can legislate ironclad protection, you have not been paying attention to things in the Gungeon where it regularly comes up that similar protection given firearms manufacturers are attached damn near daily.

Make a case that we really need more blood than the current restrictions provide, and I would accept the increased risk as viable public policy and roll up my sleeve.

[PeaceNikki]

133. They did make the case - just didn't convince the FDA in 2006 under the Bush administration.

And here you are agreeing with those twats.

[Yo_Mama]

121. They are worried more about survey error in changing the lifetime ban than anything else

Survey error - potential donors not answering the questions correctly - is the concern more than anything else. So the simpler the question the more likely the accurate response.

They do track (in all developed countries) the rare transmissions of pathogens (we're not just talking about HIV), and these seem to be highly correlated with people not answering the questions correctly. There is actually a higher risk for some other diseases than HIV, anyway, and the window time or the inability to screen is worse with some others.

The last case of HIV transfusion through just the blood supply in the US was in 2008, reported in 2010
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5941a3.htm

In that case the original transfusion would never have been made if the man had been honest on the survey - he was in denial about his risky behavior. And from that link:


The biggest reduction in transfusion infections for HIV (which highly correlates with other infections) came before nucleic acid testing was implemented, and it is known that nucleic acid testing will fail in a small number of cases. So we will indeed have more cases of hepatitis and HIV and so forth if we change standards. That is not speculative - that is very sure. Other countries have seen the same pattern, such as Germany which claims that of its six HIV transfusion transmission cases since testing began, none would have occurred if the donors had answered the questions accurately. Germany recently changed its guidelines to a lifetime restriction on MSM because of their survey experience quite recently, although they are still arguing the question:
http://www.pei.de/EN/infos-en/patienten-en/explanations-blood-donor/blood-donor-exclusion-node.html?__nnn=true

If everyone answered survey questions accurately, they could do a much better job and screen out person with higher risk and screen in a whole lot of historical MSM with current low risks. But that won't happen - there is going to be some survey error. The more detailed questions you ask about sexual behavior, the more dishonest the responses are going to be. People are not robots; they may feel ashamed of sleeping around on their partner and mentally suppress that night, their partners are not always honest with them, etc. The broader they make the category and the simpler the question the more likely the responses are to be accurate. That's the primary issue - survey error.

CDC is pretty sure that we are missing some cases of blood transfusion contagion anyway because the rate of positive-test donors is rising and they think that doctors aren't even searching for it. The 2008 case was only found because the original donor came back to make another donation and tested positive, after which the blood bank initiated inquiries about transfusion recipients.

The incidence rate the CDC estimates of 1/1.46 million is high enough under CURRENT guidelines that the rate of these incidents is likely to rise anyway, and the worst, most discriminatory result we could possibly create would be to change the guidelines and then change them back in a few years because of more detections of transfusion-related HIV. And that is almost certainly what would happen.

I don't think the FDA is going to change the policy because by 2007/2008 their risk assessment had already risen. FDA changed the guidelines to request lookbacks within the last couple of years.

People talk about this policy as excluding "gay" men. It's probable that the very highest risk group the policy excludes are men who have had sex with other men and don't consider themselves gay or bisexual. You are far more likely to get an accurate reply on a broader question than a more specific question, although you won't always get an accurate reply no matter what you ask.

If they do change the policy it will probably be to a five-year exclusion, based on the 2006 debate, because they could find a reduced study incidence in five-year abstinence.

[Tesha]

63. Which is still not 100% perfect and, *MORE IMPORTANTLY*, detects the antibodies that...

...develop after seroconversion rather than the actual
virus, and so misses the earliest infections.

Tesha

[PeaceNikki]

64. I replied to this ridiculous notion upthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2048645&mesg_id=2049753

[Tesha]

67. Your upthread reply proves nothing.

The fact is that the odds still remain very much
higher that a sample of random blood from a male
homosexual will be HIV+ as compared to a random
sample of blood from a heterosexual, non-IV-drug-
using male or any non-IV-drug-using woman.

And the blood test can miss early cases of the
infection (as well as some percentage of all cases).

Tesha

[PeaceNikki]

68. Can you cite your source? I contend you're wrong. HIV tests are extremely accurate.

When two tests are combined, the chance of getting an inaccurate result is less than 0.1%

Antibody tests are extremely accurate when it comes to detecting the presence of HIV antibodies. ELISA tests are very sensitive and so will detect very small amounts of HIV antibody. This high level of sensitivity however, means that their specificity (ability to distinguish HIV antibodies from other antibodies) is slightly lowered. There is therefore a very small chance that a result could come back as ‘false positive’.

Here's mine: http://www.avert.org/testing.htm

And also as I said upthread, I am not advocating not screening and risk factors for people of all sexual orientation need to be weighed. The "window" to which you refer exists for everyone. It's 3 months. Therefore monogamous gays and straights carry the same risk. Gays and straights that have been celibate for 20 years carry the same risk. The ban is a lifetime deferral for any man who has had gay sex since 1977. Archaic and horrifying.

[Pithlet]

69. In your link, it talks about the window period.

What is a window period?

The ‘window period’ is a term used to describe the period of time between HIV infection and the production of antibodies. During this time, an antibody test may give a ‘false negative’ result, which means the test will be negative, even though a person is infected with HIV. To avoid false negative results, antibody tests are recommended three months after potential exposure to HIV infection.

A negative test at three months will almost always mean a person is not infected with HIV. If an individual’s test is still negative at six months, and they have not been at risk of HIV infection in the meantime, it means they are not infected with HIV.

[PeaceNikki]

72. I added this

And also as I said upthread, I am not advocating not screening and risk factors for people of all sexual orientation need to be weighed. The "window" to which you refer exists for everyone. It's 3 months. Therefore monogamous gays and straights carry the same risk. Gays and straights that have been celibate for 20 years carry the same risk. The ban is a lifetime deferral for any man who has had gay sex since 1977. Archaic and horrifying.

[Pithlet]

75. Yes, they're the same for everyone.

But the point is the tests alone can't be relied on alone for that reason. And the risk factors aren't the same for everyone. I'm not making the case for banning anyone from donating, just saying that those facts are the case.

[Pithlet]

76. Yes, they're the same for everyone.

But the point is the tests alone can't be relied on alone for that reason. And the risk factors aren't the same for everyone. I'm not making the case for banning anyone from donating, just saying that those facts are the case.

[Tesha]

77. The "Window" can be up to six months.

per http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/human-immunodeficiency-virus-hiv-test


Meanwhile, Wikipedia cites a study that puts the sensitivity of
the test at 99.7%:

> ...the use of repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay followed by
> confirmatory Western blot or immunofluorescent assay remains the
> standard method for diagnosing HIV-1 infection. A large study of
> HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7%
> and specificity of 98.5% for enzyme immunoassay, and studies in U.S.
> blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99%.
> With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive
> identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000
> (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000).

That sounds great, but at 99.7%, HIV-infected blood can
get through the test 3 times out of 1000. Also:

> Most false negative results are due to the window period; other
> factors, such as post-exposure prophylaxis, can rarely produce
> false negatives

So treatment that suppresses the virus may also suppress
the blood test returning a positive result.

Tesha

[PeaceNikki]

78. lol, read your own copy and paste.

I'll wait.

[louslobbs]

44. Thanks Tesha. n/t

Lou

[quinnox]

45. good stats, Tesha

thanks

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[JackBeck]

88. Delete.

[JackBeck]

90. You forgot to mention the piece right below your graph:

African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are the racial/ethnic groups most affected by HIV.
African Americans represent approximately 14% of the US population, but accounted for 44% (21,200) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Hispanic/Latinos represent approximately 16% of the total US population, but accounted for 20% (9,400) of all new HIV infections in 2009.

Overall, in 2009, African American men had the highest rate of new HIV infections (103.9 new infections per 100,000 persons), followed by Hispanic/Latino men (39.9 per 100,000), and African American women (39.7 per 100,000).

Following your logic, since Communities of Color make up such a tiny part of our country's population, shouldn't we just ban ALL African Americans and Latinos/Hispanics from donating blood, regardless of sexual orientation?

[Tesha]

138. Those numbers are a lot less disproportionate than the numbers for MSM.

Why not work the math and get back to me?

Tesha

[JackBeck]

139. You are using the incidence rate from one year out of a 30 year epidemic

to reinforce your antiquated and bigoted stance that gay men (which is different from 'MSM', a CDC catchall for gay & bisexual identified men, transgender women, and heterosexual men who do not identify as gay or bi, but self-report having sex with men) should not be allowed to donate blood.

Looking at the trend lines over the past 30 years, the HIV epidemic has shifted to Communities of Color, particularly in the South.

Again, following your logic, do you support preventing People of Color from donating blood?

[Tesha]

142. 'Seems to me like we should use a pretty recent year; 2009 is the latest data on...

...the CDC website, but if you have incidence data
for 2010, please feel free to share it!

Tesha

[TeamsterDem]

51. WTF? Gay men cannot donate blood?

I will admit that I'm not totally "up to date" with everything I know about LBGT issues, although I try to support my gay brothers and sisters in every way I can. But this just seems stupid. Even if gay men have a higher incidence of AIDS and that's the reason for denying their donations, can't we just test the blood? Don't we do that for all donors anyway? What am I missing?

[PeaceNikki]

52. Not since 1985.

That ban was enacted when we didn't have good tests and seriously didn't understand the disease or how it was transmitted. Science and society have evolved and so should the policies.

[TeamsterDem]

53. Thanks for the answer, Nikki. It's as I suspected: More American paranoia

When will we ever move beyond that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. What you are missing is that the tests are not perfect

and as long as their is an adequate blood supply, the rules will not change for reasons of risk avoidance.

[PeaceNikki]

59. I replied to this ridiculous notion upthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2048645&mesg_id=2049753

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. But have not answered the issues it raises

including if the increased risk, no matter how small it may be, really needed.

[JackBeck]

105. Please show us that an increased statistical risk exists.

The AIDS Institute in New York (the center of the United States epidemic) already places the risk at 2 out of every 1,000,000 that you can get HIV from a blood transfusion or an organ transplant.

In your expert opinion, how do these numbers change?

And don't insinuate that any increased risk changes the numbers. Show all of us hard facts from other countries that allow gay men to donate how the numbers have increased risk.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Actually Nicki already cited number from a model that show that

Its minuscule, but if there is no compelling need, why change?

[JackBeck]

108. Of course it's miniscule.

The vast majority of those who have HIV are heterosexual.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. Any risk without commensurate increase in reward is a bad thing

If the need was dire, I would go along with the lesser rules and roll up my sleeve.

The medical risks are indeed quite low. The political and legal ones are not.

[JackBeck]

113. Don't conflate my argument with other posters.

Not once have I entertained the supply argument, so please acknowledge each poster's point separate from someone else's point of view. It's disingenuous to argue my point by citing something that PeaceNikki had to say.

Regardless, there are 8 tests that all blood goes through before it becomes available to the general public.

You should be more concerned about HCV than HIV, since it's more prevalent and a stronger virus than HIV. I look forward to seeing your anti-HCV advocacy!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. You stated much the same as she did in post 95

I fully realize the increased medical risk is minimal, but the political and legal risks are not. Risk/reward matters in the real world. The adequacy of supply is a key argument in support of keeping the status quo. When/if that changes, the standards will change as well and I will again be able to roll up my sleeve.

I am well aware of Hep-C...

[JackBeck]

118. The threat of lawsuits is a typical libertarian argument against any progressive policy change.

We saw the same thing here in NJ when we passed the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights.

One of the many things the left has learned over the past 30 years is that it's the Right who has become more litigious when it comes to implementing a free democracy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

128. I do not see this as political right vs left vs libertarian vs socialist

I find those that try and make it so have no other valid argument

[Hassin Bin Sober]

129. I'm wondering, what other activities should gay men be barred from participating.

Certainly there must be OTHER "minuscule risks" that could be negated by excluded potentially infected gay men. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to perform surgery or dental work? Ya never know, the risk is minuscule but it's there. Think of the liability! What about public toilets?

[TeamsterDem]

89. Maybe not, but I'm not convinced that banning gay men from donating avoids any risk

I know there is no test for promiscuity, but that in my view is the problem. Well, that and intravenous drug use (in terms of spreading HIV/AIDS). I'm not convinced that gay men are any more promiscuous than heterosexual men (or heterosexual women), so I still don't really see how banning them equals "risk avoidance," to use your words.

To me it seems like paranoia. To me it seems like that most American of things: overreaction to a given - often imagined and/or exaggerated - threat.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. Its fairly straight forward

While there are always calls for more blood, the need is not horribly dire or the regs would change.

Even Nikki acknowledged that models predict a minimal increase in risk.

If there is no major good to be gained, why add additional risk?


I would love to be able to donate again. However, with no appreciable health gain, and significant political and legal risks I do not think it is worth it.

[TeamsterDem]

114. Your argument presumes there is additional risk posed by gay men

That's the part of your argument I don't buy. I agree that there is no great supply shortage which would cause an erosion in standards. But I don't think allowing gay men to participate erodes any standards.

My argument is that it's promiscuity, not sexual identity, which defines risk. And you can't test for promiscuity.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. Even the supporters of changing the rules admit that there is the minimal possibility of undetected

contaminated blood. The numbers are quite low. However, with out a driving medical need there is no impetus for change for medical reasons.

First time there is a documented cases of contaminated blood from a gay male getting past the tests and infecting someone, there will be hell to pay legally and politically. I don't like that, but it is my view of the mainstream and arguably homophobic world. Any legal protection for the blood providers would be attacked in court, just ask other who have that kind of protection at the Federal level.

Given there is no discernible medical benefit, why take such risks?

[TeamsterDem]

120. That some others agree with you isn't my argument

My argument is that being gay isn't a risk factor. Being promiscuous is, as is the duration between the time of the donation and a person's last sexual encounter (gay or straight). You can be promiscuous as a homosexual or heterosexual, and of course there are degrees of promiscuity. I was in a fraternity in college: The level of promiscuity there makes me pray I never get any of those heterosexuals' blood. I'm not saying that automatically blood from a homosexual would be better than those guys, but I am saying that promiscuity and risk factors are present in both groups, gay and straight.

I also don't see your point about how the public might overreact if a tainted sample emanating from a gay source happened to infect someone, at least not with respect to our current discussion. Once again, my argument is not that perception is what it is; I know what it is. My argument is normative; e.g. that it shouldn't be the way it is because the way it is doesn't make a lot of sense from a fair-minded perspective.

[uppityperson]

141. Being gay is not a risk. You sound like you are protecting teh gays by not allowing them

to donate blood because what if someone got past the tests. Are you serious?

Let's look at this another way. There is, occasionally, rarely, a hetero who makes it past the screening. So, using your logic, we should ban all heteros.

Let's look at this still another way. The reason blacks needed to be slaves was for their own safety since they weren't prepared to earn a living wage.

Given there is no discernible benefit, why take such risks like freeing the slaves.

[uppityperson]

140. "If there is no major good to be gained, why add additional risk?" What additional risk?

What additional risks are there?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. I too have a lifetime deferral, but I support this

The tests are not perfect and I lost a good friend who contracted AIDS via blood products (hemophiliac).

The stats as posted above are pretty telling too. While it is heavily erring on the side of caution, it is a health matter, not a political one.

The other issue is legal risk. If there was ironclad protection for blood providers, then *maybe* the Red Cross and others might reconsider

[PeaceNikki]

58. The Red Cross has been trying to lift ban for YEARS.

Along with AABB and America's Blood Centers. It's the FDA who is at fault here.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

73. "red cross" Get the feeling you are dealing...

.....with people taking these replies out of their ass gut?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. They are also asking for total legal indemnity which the Fed Government is not willing to provide

and even if they did, it would not work, as we have seen in other areas.

Until there is a long term shortage I do not see this being lifted.

[iris27]

79. So why not change the deferral to, say, 8 months since you last had a new sexual partner?

Across the board, gay and straight both. That would allow the window period to pass so that tested blood would show antibodies, and would focus more on real protection of the blood supply rather than broadbrush bigotry.

[PeaceNikki]

81. Exactly. The lifetime deferral when a man has had gay sex since 1977 is ridiculous.

Archaic, bigoted and shameful

[Creideiki]

92. I could make comments on statistics and reliability of tests and how the HIV virus is leaving the

gay male subgroup.

However, I will thank the humans here for helping to expose the others.

[dsc]

98. For all those who support this ban on public health grounds

you need to also start supporting it for black and Hispanic men who are also infected far beyond the general population. Somehow I think Hell will freeze over before we do that. The fact is we have tests now that should permit gays in monogamous relationships and who have been tested in the last half year should be just fine. I am O negative and haven't had sex in the last 6 months. I know I don't have AIDS, it is stupid that I can't give.

[OhioChick]

99. I wholeheartedly agree...

It is stupid that you can't give. I'm always hearing about shortages and they'd love to have O Neg.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. I am under the lifetime deferral as well

Celibate for quite some time and disease free. However, unless there is a long term and compelling shortage, why should a greater risk be accepted when it is not needed?

Though I am both clean and banned, having had a friend dies from contaminated blood products, I am happy to err on the side of caution since it is health based, not political.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

119. What's your "deferral" for?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

130. Same one that is the topic here

Sex with another male since the cut off date.

[justiceischeap]

125. You've brought up your friend dying from contaminated blood products

I'd like to know when your friend got those blood products (if it was during the time of the ban) and if it was after 1985, then the fault is presumably a straight person who contaminated said products.

Your argument doesn't seem to have much logic if the above criteria are met.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

131. It was very early

Tests were not out there yet.

[dsc]

127. When I used to lie and give

I was literally called every 56th day to come out and give blood. Apparently there was a shortage of O neg in that particular place.

[seabeyond]

124. +1. nt

[JackBeck]

100. Worldwide, HIV has always been a heterosexual virus.

I realize that's probably new to many people around here, but out of the 40 million people who have HIV worldwide, most of them got this chronic illness through heterosexual contact, whether it be through unprotected sex, sharing injection drug paraphernalia or mother to child vertical transmission.

And for those who focus on MSM transmission in the United States, you continue to make heterosexual women of color invisible, who disproportionately account for most of those who are newly infected, particularly in the South.

[JI7]

107. John Kerry says "not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. John Kerry is not a scientist

Some of us remember that heavy caution at the FDA has lead to some good things too.

[JI7]

117. Kerry's statement is based on reports he read from Scientists, that's why he is trying to lift the

ban

[Hassin Bin Sober]

122. Yeah, he's not a stem-cell researcher but he has an opinion that doesn't jibe with..

... anti-science idiots. Kinda like this subject. And the FDA is just as subject to political pressures from, you guessed it, anti-science idiots as any other federal agency.

[PeaceNikki]

132. Also, think about the 2006 attempts to lift - under what administration was the FDA?

Yeah, like scientists could have convinced them that "the gays" were safe. :eyes:

[Jamastiene]

112. It looks like all these years later,

people would finally realize that AIDS is NOT a "gay disease." That misinformation was perpetrated in the 80s like it was gospel. I think we've learned a lot since then. It's not the 80s any more and people know and understand the disease better nowadays. It affects all types of people. It is definitely not just a "gay disease." So, why they are keeping that policy is beyond me. FFS, they need blood and some perfectly good people with perfectly good blood want to donate it. Take the blood already. If all blood is tested anyhow, why not take the blood.

This policy is so backasswards. It infuriates me.

Do they also ban African blood? There is a really high incidence of HIV infection on the continent of Africa. What about straight people? Straight people can be HIV+ too.

Personally, I think gay men should just lie and donate anyhow. If you are reasonably sure you are not HIV+, lie like hell and go for it. There are lives that need to be saved and a stupid bigoted policy should not stand in the way.

I wish people were made more aware of just how many gay people in this world are absolute heroes; EMTs, soldiers, firefighters, police, child protective services (some of the most ardent protectors of children are actually gay people), teachers, doctors, nurses. Well, they are heroes to me anyhow. So many good people who WANT to do GOOD for others in the world and bigotry denies them that opportunity.

K&R

Not my best rant, but I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. Bigotry against gay people needs to stop. Pronto.

[seabeyond]

126. i heard about this a couple years ago and really could not believe. my two BIL's are the type

that are very social conscious and i was sure they were donating. asked one of my BIL's if this was really true and they really could not donate. serious, i could not believe it. he told me nope, they can't and they don't.

this one really bothers me.

people are going to be honest or they are not. the questionaire is not gonna stop someone who wants to contaminate. there are not going to be perfect storms of those not knowing and contaminate and test not picking up. and with other groups being high carriers and not stopped from donating makes NO sense to me at all.

[mwooldri]

136. People born in certain African countries are banned.

From the Dead Loss (sorry.. erm Red Cross) website

"Persons who were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger and Nigeria since 1977 cannot be blood donors."

This is because of a variant of HIV - HIV Type O - and there does not exist a good test to screen for HIV-O.

Yes, the ban on homosexual males should be lifted.

[mwooldri]

134. Blood donation rules IMO need to be re-evaluated.

Male homosexuals need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The ban on donations by those born in certain African countries should be lifted on a case-by-case basis (e.g. doctors certification of no HIV-O infection).

The ban on people from the British Isles should also be lifted, again with certain restrictions in place - given the evidence that exists I believe people under 40 should be able to donate in the USA, and that date can go out as vCJD gets rarer.

Apparently having a mental illness and taking tons of medications doesn't disqualify me but spending 3+ months in the UK in the designated time period disqualifies me.

[PeaceNikki]

135. I agree with part of your post.

Since there is no test for vCJD in humans that could be used to screen blood donors, I understand this deferral.

The mental illness and most medications (there is a deferral list for some) are not passed onto recipients so I am not sure how that comes into play at all.

[mwooldri]

137. Further clarification and response:

Donations by male homosexuals - reading posts here and other evidence elsewhere has changed my mind. The ban needs lifting outright, even if it needs to be gradual to allay the fears of people who think they can catch "gay disease".

You are correct, there is no test to detect CJD in any form. Only way is a brain dissection after death to confirm if it was CJD. However evidence exists that shows that variant CJD (the mad cow disease caused version) has peaked. Since 2005 there has been 25 deaths from vCJD in the UK, only 2 in 2011 thus far.