Blood donation ban for men who have slept with men

Remove all ads!

Hmm, also, if the test for HIV is only reliable after 6 weeks, then anyone who donates blood before the 6 weeks is up could have infected blood and the test wouldn't catch it. So if you eliminate one of the largest sources of HIV positive blood, it would probably prevent a lot of blood from being tainted before it could be tested for.

 

We had a tainted blood scandal here in Canada in the 90s (maybe it was the 80s, can't remember) and a lot of people were infected. IIRC, at that time they were only randomly sampling the donated blood. Hopefully that has changed -- Silvery claims that they test all the blood donated. I want that to be true, but I don't know if it is.

In any event, even though they test the blood they still collect as much background data as they can on the donors (I know that for a fact.) If they are testing all the blood and have found that a lot of donations from particular sets of people (not just gays) are contaminated, then it behooves them, if they are using their funds wisely, to stop taking donations from those demographics.

As for catching the gay, that's a silly straw man. I am not a moron. I know you can't "catch the gay" from a blood transfusion. I have never once said anything close to this. If I needed a transfusion and could get a clean donation from a homosexual, I would take it. I would also cheerfully give my blood to a gay knowing full well that it wouldn't turn him (or her, looks like I've gotta cover all my bases) straight.

But given the statistics that I have seen, I would worry about catching an actual bloodborne disease, such as AIDS, hepatitis, or something more exotic, and I would be worried not only about donations from homosexuals, but intravenous drug users, promiscuous heteros, and people who have travelled to certain countries. I do not hate any of these groups as has been insinuated. I just am using common sense here backed up by statistics.

 

Well, I don't think they block promiscuous heteros, but then I don't know how common STDs actually are in that population, and the big issue ATM is the incurrability of HIV. If I get a blood transfusion, and then the doctors say the blood was tainted and I need an injection to keep me from getting X (or to cure X), but with that I'll be fine, I'll be a little upset, but no biggie. If they tell me I have HIV, someone's going to pay.

 

No, they currently don't block the promiscuous, but they probably should. I think a simple question about when the donor last had unprotected sex with a new partner would probably yield a better result than a flat ban on gay donors. It would probably help rule out more heterosexual people who shouldn't be donating, too.

Having sex with another man, vacationing in South Africa, or even using IV drugs shouldn't result in a permanent ban on donations. A temporary ban is certainly prudent, but a permanent ban is impractical. A gay man in a monogamous relationship is a much lower risk than a promiscuous heterosexual. The same is true of a man in a monogamous relationship that injected heroin a few times back in the '90s . HIV doesn't lie dormant and undetectable for 10 years, after all.

 

Dormant, yes, it can; undetectable, no, from what I understand. I doubt they'd get better results from banning promiscuous heteros simply because that's such a large population, and I actually doubt that infection levels even now, across the board (all blood borne illnesses), are that high. One of the problems with HIV today is that the virus is actually smaller than the pores in latex condoms, so even with multiple layers, there's still a chance for infection. I don't think that's true of most STDs.

 

The HIV virus is smaller than the pores in latex condoms. In fact, it's much smaller. If you want to picture the pore in latex to be the size of a doorway, the HIV virus is comparable in size to a basketball. It's easy to throw a basketball through a doorway. However, a latex condom is not one molecule layer thick. It is actually hundreds of layers thick. So to use the doorway and basketball comparison again, it's not as simple as throwing a basketball through a doorway. It's more like trying to throw a basketball through hundreds of doorways, and the doorways are not lined up. That's why condoms are effective at reducing the spread of HIV. Failures are due to condoms breaking not because of a "perfect throw".

As for it being common of most STDs it entirely depends on whether or not the STD in question is caused by a virus or bacteria. Viruses are smaller than the pores of latex condoms. Even the smallest bacteria are a couple of orders of magnitude larger than a virus and are much too large to fit through.

 

Perhaps I should have been more clear -- when I referred to promiscusous heteros, I meant all of them but was specifically thinking of the ones who use the services of prostitutes. An earlier poster mentioned that if you have had sex with a prostitute you could be banned for life from donating. That's harsh, just as harsh as a lifetime ban for a homosexual, but if the statistics bear out the policy, then the harshness is justified.

I argue that ANY risky lifestyle choice or history element (visits to countries with a large occurence of AIDS and such) that can be statistically proved to increase the risk of carrying a bloodborne disease should disqualify the person. It's not a comment on their morality or anything judegmental like that, just prudence and care for the health of the people who receive the donated blood.

 

This is from the blood donation site.

 

I don't see any homophobia in that excerpt, Silvery, or any other bigotry. I just see bean counter types (actuaries, if you will) crunching numbers and coming up with mathematical parameters that will make the collection of blood economical and safe.

 

I didn't post that for any reason other than I though it would be helpful for people to see the rules regarding who can and can't give blood.

Saying that, I don't understand why a woman who has had sex (protected or otherwise) with a man who has had sex with a man is only banned for 12 months while men who have had sex with other men (including protected) are banned for life. That seems quite silly to me

 

It may have something to do with a continuation of lifestyle. A man who has sex with other men, even only occasionally, is repeatedly re-exposed to the higher risk of HIV associated with the homosexual community. It's like walking into a room with a flu patient every week, you're constantly re-exposing yourself to potential infection. The woman, on the other hand, is still having heterosexual contact (with associated lower odds of infection), but this one is a link to the homosexual community (with associated higher odds of infection). The one year ban may be for enough time for HIV to show, but it may then assume further sexual contacts are safer.

It's a bit of a stretch, and something of an assumption, but again, if statistics bear it out, it may be useful.

 

That's one of about 40 questions they ask when you donate blood, at least in the US. Some other questions are:

Have you paid money or drugs for sex?
Have you taken money or drugs for sex?
Do you have any tattoos?
Have you every taken drugs through your vein?
Have you travelled outside the US in the last 5 years?
Have you lived abroad for an amount of time adding up to 1-2 years?
Have you been to sub-saharan Africa?
Have you ever tested positive for HIV?
Are you donating so you can be tested for HIV (every donation is tested)?

Plus a string of questions about diseases, etc...

I've donated over 2 gallons of blood so far in my life, and I've only been denied once. I took a vacation in Mexico and spent a few days in the jungle. I couldn't donate for a year because of the chance of having malaria in my blood.

Statistically, HIV concentrations are higher in gay men than other other group. Because the goal of the questions is to safeguard the blood supply and reduce the potential for infecting others, I don't think the questions, or the ban is unreasonable.

 

Agreed.

Also, health > non-discrimination.

I would be against banning those donations if the ban were on ideological grounds. But non-discrimination is not enough reason to lower safety measures.

There may still be reasons to reject certain categories outright. As Tal said, processing and testing donations isn't cheap. I say it also takes time. Time is needed and is paid for too. It doesn't renew. You can let out five criminals to avoid sentencing one innocent on principle, but you can't process and reject 4 out of 5 donations on principle of non-discrimination.

 

I agree with this. If the numbers say that gays on the whole are too risky a group, so be it.

However, I can't help seeing a certain smugness in the way some of our more conservative posters have suddenly started trusting statistics. No tossing the Mark Twain quote around now.

Interestingly, every gay rights discussion boils down to trumped rights vs. hurt feelings. For some reason, gays always have to settle for less than equal rights just so that the religious conservatives' feelings won't be hurt.

 

The thing is, and why I got so heated a while back is that I am positive the ban came into place due to safety reasons and pure ignorance and fear of HIV. Why I get annoyed is that I think it is still in place due to people who are not fond of homosexuals out of pure obstinancy blocking it by discussions such as the one we have here.

Instead of asking if someone have had sex with a man recently they could just change the question to whether you have had unprotected sex or sex with a stranger recently. Problem solved and this entire thing is a non-issue. I do get riled up because the people lining up to defend the ban are one and all people who have shown previously to harbor quite negative feelings towards homosexuals.

 

I could support this, as it would safeguard the lives of the people receiving blood. And that's all I really care about when it comes to this issue.

 

To build on Tal's point; you are making the erroneous assumption that someone who doesn't have "positive feelings" towards homosexuals, must have "negative feelings". I think there are far more people who just don't care about homosexuals at all and are far more concerned with the safety of the blood supply.

 

Hey guys, this isn't a thread about gay rights or a competition on who can be the snottiest about other peoples beliefs, it's about the current ban on allowing men who've slept with men being allowed to give blood. These people aren't necessarily gay!