Ban kept for gay men donating blood

New Posts

A

Autumn2004

Inactive
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
2,440
Reaction score
18
Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of hiv through transfusions.

In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America's Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.

"I am disappointed, I must confess," said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America's Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation's blood supply.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_he_me/blood_gay_men
 
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:
  • <LI class=vertSpace>Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75&#37; of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors. <LI class=vertSpace>Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing. <LI class=vertSpace>Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population. <LI class=vertSpace>Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called "window period". The "window period" is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person. <LI class=vertSpace>FDA's MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the "window period" of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors. <LI class=vertSpace>Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing. <LI class=vertSpace>Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result. <LI class=vertSpace>No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections. <LI class=vertSpace>Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA's first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
  • Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.
from the faq link at the bottom of the report.
 
You know, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box but how does this deterr blood donations from being tainted with HIV? Number one, you can always lie about your sexuality. Number two, straight men/women can be exposed to HIV also. Should they ban men that have been involved with prostitutes? men that have been involved with women who are involved with gay or bisexual men? women whose husbands have been getting a little on the side...the list could go on and on.
Just test the blood!!
 
As long as they are testing the blood for HIV/AIDS what does it matter who donates? Saying all gays have HIV is like saying all blacks will steal your car. it is absurd considering the blood shortages some areas have in the blood banks. Plenty of straights have AIDS too. How about taking all blood and screeeing the heck out of it.
 
This is down right ignorant. As said before, just because your gay doesn't mean you have to admit it. I highly doubt those who have "high risk" sex walk in and say "hi, I like to have unprotected one night stands and I'd like to donate some blood".
 
I've had many blood transfusions during my life and I would hate to think that if someone who is gay is willing and wants to donate blood and they aren't HIV positive that they will be turned away.

It's disciminatory and it's stupid.
 
Last I heard, (On Oprah several months ago) the fastest growing group of HIV+ patients are Heterosexual African-American Women ages 18-30. The next group was Heterosexual teens/young adults ages 15-25.

I would be more worried about blood received at a school/college blood drive than in the gay men population, (who have seemed to figure out how to slow down the spread of HIV amongst themselves.)
 
Well if I am not mistaken, I think there is a possibility of turning gay if one is transfused with gay blood.:p
 
LOL. Hmmm, well then, I might be gay, black, American Indian, Asian, etc. When I had leukemia I had so many blood transfusions who knows what's running through my veins right now.

:waitasec:
 
Seriously, there are people who are so ignorant that they will not accept blood from another race. As long as it is clean, if I need it I want it.
I have never had a need for blood but my FIL recently needed blood and they were short his type at the hospital.
 
lizzybeth said:
You know, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box but how does this deterr blood donations from being tainted with HIV? Number one, you can always lie about your sexuality. Number two, straight men/women can be exposed to HIV also. Should they ban men that have been involved with prostitutes? men that have been involved with women who are involved with gay or bisexual men? women whose husbands have been getting a little on the side...the list could go on and on.
Just test the blood!!
Click to expand...

Um, yes. Have you ever donated blood? All of those questions (and many more) are asked, and if you answer yes to any of them your blood is not accepted. It is frustrating for the person who wants to donate and very frustrating for the community who collects the blood and frustrating for the medical community and frustrating and dangerous for the people who need blood, but they are doing the best they can to make sure the supply is safe.

I can no longer give blood b/c I have spent a cumulative 4 months in the last 20 years in the UK. Because of Mad Cow disease. There is no test for Mad Cow disease. There is no indication that I have Mad Cow disease.* There is no research I know of to show that humans can carry Mad Cow disease for years and years with no symptoms and then pass it along in their blood. BUT, as far as they know, the safest thing to prevent the transmission of it in the US is not to let me (or lots of other people, including tons of our service men and women, who are some of our most loyal and vigilant donors) give blood.

Does it seem stupid? I guess. But do I want to be horribly ill with a suppressed immune system and need blood, only to find out later that it was tainted b/c they didn't want to offend someone? NO!

If a man is homosexual but hasn't had sex with another man, then this is irrelevant. If he has, then it matters. Just like being with a prostitute, being an IV drug user, spending time in certain foreign countries, having certain medical conditions, or being of a certain age all preclude one from donating. This isn't about orientation. It is about statistics. It's about safety.

*my DH might debate this, but it is irrelevant to the discussion :crazy:
 
sherri79 said:
The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:
  • <LI class=vertSpace>Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors. <LI class=vertSpace>Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing. <LI class=vertSpace>Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population. <LI class=vertSpace>Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called "window period". The "window period" is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person. <LI class=vertSpace>FDA's MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the "window period" of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors. <LI class=vertSpace>Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing. <LI class=vertSpace>Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result. <LI class=vertSpace>No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections. <LI class=vertSpace>Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA's first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
  • Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals..
Click to expand...
  • --Those are pretty stunning statistics
 
MissieMt said:
This is down right ignorant. As said before, just because your gay doesn't mean you have to admit it. I highly doubt those who have "high risk" sex walk in and say "hi, I like to have unprotected one night stands and I'd like to donate some blood".
Click to expand...
--good point--how do they know they are gay if they don't admit it?--Of course there are the "flamers', feminine, Liberace types,but besides those,who can tell one is gay for sure?--look at Rock Hudson,wasn't anyrhing obviously gay about him
 
they are coming from the stance of - "do no harm".
basically, it would raise the risk even slightly, and no one wants ANYONE to get HIV from a blood transfusion! therefore, they are being strict. i would much rather them be strict than not not care. Lessening the standards just to be politically correct is really ignorant. HIV is spread through IV drug use and sexual contact with a higher risk for male to male contact than other types. therefore those activities must be taken into account when assessing risk.

however.
that doesn't mean people aren't lieing about their orientation. a lot of married men have sex with men and do not consider themselves homosexual or take into consideration that their behavior is risky in reguards to HIV/AIDS transmission. it is thought that this is in part why there has been a jump in the number of heterosexual married women who are becoming HIV positive.
 
angelmom said:
If a man is homosexual but hasn't had sex with another man, then this is irrelevant. If he has, then it matters. Just like being with a prostitute, being an IV drug user, spending time in certain foreign countries, having certain medical conditions, or being of a certain age all preclude one from donating. This isn't about orientation. It is about statistics. It's about safety.
Click to expand...

Angel, I agree with you to a large extent. There is no inalienable "right" to donate blood, so the issue is practical safety rather than denial of civil rights.

With this exception: we may fairly ask whether bias on the part of those who make the rules (particularly those in any government agency under the current administration, which is both pro-crony and anti-gay) is affecting whether we have an adequate blood supply.

I think you'd have a hard time finding many people less at risk for AIDS than my gay partner and I (monogamous relationship since 1977, numerous tests show us both to be HIV-). So why are the rules drawn so broadly as to exclude people of such low risk (while including many others at higher risk)?

(Again this is only a question of practicality. As long as we have plenty of blood, I don't care.

Also, if anyone wonders why men in a monogamous relationship would be tested for HIV, the answer is that if you're gay, regardless of relationship status, EVERY new doctor you see wants to run the test.)
 
Peter Hamilton said:
--good point--how do they know they are gay if they don't admit it?--Of course there are the "flamers', feminine, Liberace types,but besides those,who can tell one is gay for sure?--look at Rock Hudson,wasn't anyrhing obviously gay about him
Click to expand...

Peter, I'm impressed! You type very well for someone who is both blind and deaf! :crazy:

All of the rules are based on people telling the truth, so they only affect those of us who are honest and law-abiding.
 
If this is such a big issue, why don't they test all of the blood that is donated. That's the only way they will be able to prevent someone getting infected blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 194 more.
Total: 2,644 (members: 195, guests: 2,449)

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
2,449
Total visitors
2,644
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,208
Messages
17,965,091
Members
228,718
Latest member
CourtandSims4
Back
Top