• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaborn

Member
(CNN) -- The American Red Cross says power outages created by recent storms in the East and Midwest cut blood donations, which were already low this summer. In June there was a nationwide shortfall, with donations down more than 10% across the country.

"We are asking people to please call 1-800-RED-CROSS or visit us at redcrossblood.org to find a way to donate if they can," said Stephanie Millian, Red Cross director of biomedical communications. "We need people's help."

One group that would like to help, but legally can't, may be moving one step closer to eligibility. Since the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic decimated their community, gay men -- or MSMs (men who have sex with men) as they are called by federal agencies -- have not been allowed to donate blood. In June, a group of 64 U.S. legislators led by Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services encouraging it to move forward with a study that may lead to the end of the decades-old ban.

"We remain concerned that a blanket deferral of MSM for any length of time both perpetuates the unwarranted discrimination against the bisexual and gay community and prevents healthy men from donating blood without a definitive finding of added benefit to the safety of the blood supply," the letter said.

"This is a matter of life and death and we are turning away over 50,000 healthy men who want to donate blood," Quigley told CNN. "A straight person who has unsafe sex with multiple partners can give blood, and that creates a greater risk than a gay person in a monogamous relationship."

The policy started at a time when people didn't know how the deadly virus that causes AIDS spread. At the time, there wasn't a good test to detect whether HIV was present in donated blood, and HIV was getting into the nation's blood supply. They knew this because hemophiliacs who were getting blood transfusions started showing symptoms of AIDS. What scientists also knew was that a disproportionate number of gay men were affected by the virus.

To eliminate risk, the Food and Drug Administration added a screening question to the federal guidelines. Blood banks were instructed to ask male donors if they had had sex with a man, even once, since 1977. The FDA regards 1977 as the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. If the potential donor responded "yes," he would automatically be removed from the donor pool for life.

No similar questions were asked to screen out donors who engaged in other potentially risky sexual behavior. Donors weren't asked about the number of partners they had, nor were they asked if their sexual partners had engaged in unprotected sex with other HIV positive partners.

"While the Red Cross is obligated by law to follow the FDA guidelines, we continue to work with the AABB (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks) to push through policies that would be much more fair and consistent among donors who engage in similar risk activities," Millian said.

Scientists can now screen for most instances of HIV within days of infection, and the nation's blood banks have called a lifetime ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted."
Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it is a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts.

While he is a gay man, Adam Denney thinks he would be the perfect candidate to donate blood. He doesn't use IV drugs. He practices safer sex. He even educates people on how to prevent new HIV infections as a regular volunteer educator with AIDS Volunteers Inc. in Lexington, Kentucky. He thinks his exclusion is unfair.

"Yes, gay men are still a high-risk community, but so are minority women, and there are no standards prohibiting them from donating. There would be rightful outrage against that kind of blanket population ban," Denney said. "I am banned based on one reason only, my sexual orientation. It's totally discriminatory."

When Denney went to donate at a blood drive on the Eastern Kentucky University Campus a few years ago, he said he knew what likely would happen when the nurses asked the sexual history question. "I did know what I was getting into, but I was shocked by how it felt to be rejected," he said. "It was almost like they thought I wasn't important enough to give blood, like because I was gay I didn't count. It was a horrible feeling."

Nathan Schaefer with GMHC, an AIDS service organization, said Denney normally would be the type of donor blood banks are hungry for. Studies show those who give blood when they are young become regular lifetime donors, something most blood banks are struggling to find these days. GMHC has been fighting to change the ban for years.

In 2010 GMHC joined a coalition of other nonprofits to encourage Congress to send a letter to HHS to end the ban, which some members of congress did. In June of that year, HHS brought together an independent panel of experts. The Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability reviewed the policy and decided to keep it and concluded the ban was "suboptimal," because it allows high-risk individuals to donate while keeping low-risk donors out. However, the expert committee also concluded "available scientific data are inadequate to support change to a specific alternate policy." The panel suggested the policy not be changed and recommended further evaluation.

HHS then promised to conduct feasibility studies to determine if there was a subset of the gay male population that would pose little or no threat to the blood supply. "We finally got them to stop defending the policy at the very least, which was pretty significant," Schaefer said.

The HHS is still determining the criteria for which part of the population to study.
GMHC suggested the population to consider should include gay men who have had only one sex partner in the past six months. Spain and Italy, two countries with more progressive donor policies, hold everyone to that standard regardless of sexual orientation.

Schaefer takes the point one step further. "A straight person could donate today after having unprotected sex with hundreds of partners, and in the United States they won't ask about that behavior," he said. He added that four out of five gay men are HIV negative, which he estimated means 2 million additional people could be blood donors.

A 2010 study by the Williams Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles estimated that if gay men who had not had sexual contact for the past 12 months were allowed to donate blood, more than 53,000 additional men would likely make more than 89,000 blood donations. That number may seem small, but blood banks say it could help enormously, especially now, when blood supply shortages are common.

After Denney was denied the chance to donate, he asked some of his friends to help him demonstrate outside the blood drive. They produced signs to raise awareness about the ban and distributed educational material. They also escorted people to the drive, because they wanted people to continue to donate. "A lot of people in the Bible Belt assume you have AIDS if you are a gay man," he said. "We wanted them to understand that is not the case. We are banned based on an outdated policy. When people questioned us, I told them about how I always heard that people who donate blood are heroes. Gay men want to be heroes, too."

Story Here
 

Enduin

No bald cap? Lies!
I hope this goes through if not just for the slight hope that an anti-gay lawmaker can be caught doing a dude and in his defense claims that he was recently given a blood transfusion that unbeknownst to him came from a gay guy which caused him to temporarily become gay too.

Which would then lead to the subsequent rightwing conspiracy that the gay controlled media is now entering a new and even more sinister stage of attempting to turn everyone gay. Led by the lovely Michele Bachmann and her husband spewing out some batshit crazy things about how we cant trust scientists and doctors who say you cant catch the gay, especially through blood, because how can you really know.

That would be my superbowl.
 

2San

Member
Sounds good. The initial ban, didn't seem that crazy. We have come a long way by now. So hopefully it will pass.

edit:Googling here and there, it seems many countries have blocked MSM blood donors(which includes the more liberal countries out there). It seems there's actually scientific evidence that still points out to a significant increased risk.
 
I had no idea it was a lifetime ban. That's crazy. Glad to see its being looked at. There's no reason why they should be singled out
 
I got 12 month ban in the UK for having accupuncture once.

NHS hates alternative therapies when their own ones are shit or under funded.
 

injurai

Banned
Well I'm sure this partly stems from the increased chance that a gay person has contracted HIV. But a lot of people are just scared that they might contract the..."gay." It's really stupid, is there a cheap way for them to test for HIV though? Otherwise they can't allow something that could risk peoples lives. Kinda an estranged predicament in my opinion.
 
I got 12 month ban in the UK for having accupuncture once.

NHS hates alternative therapies when their own ones are shit or under funded.

Heh, did they specify anything in particular as a cause for you not being able to donate or were they just unhappy that you had it done?
 

Dead Man

Member
Yeah, we have that here too. Stupid rule, needs to go. Have instead questions about all sexually risky behaviour, unsafe sex, multiple partners etc of they want.
 

Gaborn

Member
Well I'm sure this partly stems from the increased chance that a gay person has contracted HIV. But a lot of people are just scared that they might contract the..."gay." It's really stupid, is there a cheap way for them to test for HIV though? Otherwise they can't allow something that could risk peoples lives. Kinda an estranged predicament in my opinion.

As the article notes all blood is tested anyway and they can detect an infection within days of it's occurrence.

I don't want to get into a long back and forth, but the bolded isn't entirely true.

I think as written it is. Knowing someone is a gay man by itself should not be inherently disqualifying with our current understanding of HIV infection risk factors. As I think the article did a pretty good job of noting the real issue is behavior. If a gay man is in a monogamous relationship they're a very low risk for HIV infection, same as a heterosexual man. If a gay man has multiple partners they're at a significantly higher risk, just as a straight man with multiple partners *cough* Magic Johnson *cough* is at increased risk.
 

gerg

Member
They can't in the UK either.

The law recently changed to allow donation for MSMs who have not had sex within the past year. It's not a great change, but it's a start.

I got 12 month ban in the UK for having accupuncture once.

NHS hates alternative therapies when their own ones are shit or under funded.

That's not true, I don't think.

When my mother got breast cancer I think she was allowed to receive one alternative treatment (alongside her regular treatment) for free under her NHS coverage. More often than not I hear of the NHS getting lambasted for somehow supporting or covering alternative remedies, and not the other way around.
 

injurai

Banned
As the article notes all blood is tested anyway and they can detect an infection within days of it's occurrence.

As long as ALL the blood that is donated is tested and ensured to be safe for its recipient, its is pure ignorance and stupidity to prevent gays, or any other demographic from donating blood. Especially when it is meant to save lives. I hope this is fixed soon.
 

tokkun

Member
Well I'm sure this partly stems from the increased chance that a gay person has contracted HIV. But a lot of people are just scared that they might contract the..."gay."

I would say that it entirely stems from the increased chance of HIV, given that there is no restriction on gay women from donating, and they disqualify straight people who have had higher risk activities like using needle drugs and even just traveling to certain parts of Africa.
 

LuchaShaq

Banned
Gay men are lucky.

Every time I donate and accidentally give them my real phone number I get spam called until I'm super rude on the phone even when I ask them to stop.

Yes I know I'm eligible to donate again, no I'm not driving an hour and taking a day out of work to do so fuck off I'll do it when I can, it's not like I haven't done it 2 times a year since I was in HS.
 

Gaborn

Member
I would say that it entirely stems from the increased chance of HIV, given that there is no restriction on gay women from donating, and they disqualify straight people who have had higher risk activities like using needle drugs and even just traveling to certain parts of Africa.

Except they don't disqualify straight people (or anyone else) for sex without a condom, multiple partners, etc. It seems fairly obvious that these rules were created in a different era.

As it is, again, all blood the red cross receives is tested for a wide variety of diseases. According to the Red Cross's FAQ on donating, specifically the question "What tests are administered to ensure my blood is safe to distribute to patients?"

Blood donations are tested for the following:

ABO and Rh blood types.
Unexpected red blood cell antibodies that are a result of prior transfusion, pregnancy, or other factors.
Hepatitis B surface antigen, indicating a current infection (hepatitis) or carrier state for hepatitis B virus.
Antibody to hepatitis B core antigen, indicator of a present or past infection with the hepatitis B virus.
Antibody to hepatitis C virus, indicating a current or past infection with hepatitis C virus (most common cause of non-A/non-B hepatitis).
Antibody to HTLV-I/II, indicator of infection with a virus that may cause adult T-cell leukemia or neurological disease.
Antibody to HIV-1/2, indicator of infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) for hepatitis C (HCV), hepatitis B (HBV) and HIV.
Screening test for antibodies to syphilis.
NAT for West Nile Virus (WNV).
Enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) test for Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas Disease).
In addition, all platelet apheresis donations are tested for bacterial contamination.

Which doesn't mean that the screening process is useless, but rather that we need to be smarter about how we exclude people based on best practices. I think the current approach excludes too many safe donors and allows too many unsafe donors.
 
Fun fact: I am a straight healthy male and am banned from giving blood for 16 lifetimes! Thanks red cross!

Hey if you don't want my blood, I won't give it to you.

They have some policies that need to be reexamined. The gay one chief among them.
 

tokkun

Member
Except they don't disqualify straight people (or anyone else) for sex without a condom, multiple partners, etc. It seems fairly obvious that these rules were created in a different era.

That depends on how much additional risk straight people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners pose. Surely it will be higher than those who practice safe sex, but is it actually higher than gay men?

For example, one of the men quoted in your OP complains that minority women aren't banned; while it is true that black women are much more likely to be infected than the general population, their odds of being infected are still nearly 100x lower than for gay men.

So, what I would say is that this is a false dichotomy of 'higher-risk groups' and 'lower-risk groups'.
 

Prez

Member
Fun fact: I am a straight healthy male and am banned from giving blood for 16 lifetimes! Thanks red cross!

Hey if you don't want my blood, I won't give it to you.

They have some policies that need to be reexamined. The gay one chief among them.

At least tell us why you are banned...
 
At least tell us why you are banned...
Haha I didn't even notice I didn't write it. I lived in some places in eastern Europe for 16 times "too long" so I probably have mad cow. Or so they say. I kind of understand since they can't test for it I guess. But still, it's funny to me. I guess everyone in Europe has cjd.
 

Gaborn

Member
That depends on how much additional risk straight people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners pose. Surely it will be higher than those who practice safe sex, but is it actually higher than gay men?

For example, one of the men quoted in your OP complains that minority women aren't banned; while it is true that black women are much more likely to be infected than the general population, their odds of being infected are still nearly 100x lower than for gay men.

So, what I would say is that this is a false dichotomy of 'higher-risk groups' and 'lower-risk groups'.

But it seems to me that's why a question about the number of sexual partners someone has had in the last year, for example would be important. Anyone regardless of orientation with more than, say, 5 sexual partners should be considered a risk in donating. You're trying to say that all gay men have or should be treated as having equal risk, and that is simply not so.

A significant reason gay men are at so much higher risk than other groups is we are more likely to have multiple partners in a shorter span. Historically gay men have also been more likely to engage in unprotected sex. So a smarter policy would ask questions about the number of recent sexual partners someone has had, and whether they used protection during these sexual encounters.
 

Prez

Member
Haha I didn't even notice I didn't write it. I lived in some places in eastern Europe for 16 times "too long" so I probably have mad cow. Or so they say. I kind of understand since they can't test for it I guess. But still, it's funny to me. I guess everyone in Europe has cjd.

Yeah you're right, fuck the Red Cross for not taking risks.
 

t26

Member
As long as ALL the blood that is donated is tested and ensured to be safe for its recipient, its is pure ignorance and stupidity to prevent gays, or any other demographic from donating blood. Especially when it is meant to save lives. I hope this is fixed soon.

I don't think thats possible, which is why you got people inflected during blood transfer.
 

Dead Man

Member
I don't think thats possible, which is why you got people inflected during blood transfer.

It didn't used to be possible. New tests are quicker and cheaper, and cover more diseases. Gaborn posted the list up the page a bit.

Edit: So beaten.
 

Prez

Member
As long as ALL the blood that is donated is tested and ensured to be safe for its recipient, its is pure ignorance and stupidity to prevent gays, or any other demographic from donating blood. Especially when it is meant to save lives. I hope this is fixed soon.

You know HIV can't be detected in the first 3 months after infection, right? So if someone who donates blood contracted HIV in the past 3 months, it might not show up in the tests and infect the recipient.
 

Gaborn

Member
You know HIV can't be detected in the first 3 months after infection, right? So if someone giving blood contracted HIV in the past 3 months, it might not show up in the tests and infect the recipient.

From the article

Scientists can now screen for most instances of HIV within days of infection, and the nation's blood banks have called a lifetime ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

Stop using outdated information. This isn't the 80s, or even the 90s anymore. We've come a long way.
 
Blood Donation services ban any kind of 'high risk' lifestyle in the questionnaire including service in the military or significant time spent overseas or surgery and up until very recently, those who needed therapeutic phlebotomies (they want donors who come out of the goodness of their hearts). They get less quantity and more quality that way.
 
Yeah you're right, fuck the Red Cross for not taking risks.
I don't believe it's a risk though. I'm pretty sure I don't have cjd. I'm pretty sure living in those countries never put me at any greater risk of actually getting it.

This is all for naught regardless as after cruising wikipedia I found this:

On May 28, 2002, the United States Food and Drug Administration instituted a policy that excludes from donation anyone who spent at least six months in certain European countries, (or three months in the United Kingdom), from 1980 to 1996. Given the large number of U.S. military personnel and their dependents residing in Europe, it was expected that over 7% of donors would be deferred due to the policy. Later changes to this policy have relaxed the restriction to a cumulative total of five years or more of civilian travel in European countries (six months or more if military). The three-month restriction on travel to the UK, however, has not been changed.

So I might be able to give blood now!

Well maybe not since it was 5 and a half years. Regardless their rules change so hopefully they'll do something about this as well.
 

Dead Man

Member
You know HIV can't be detected in the first 3 months after infection, right? So if someone who donates blood contracted HIV in the past 3 months, it might not show up in the tests and infect the recipient.

A p24 antigen test is another type of HIV test. Antigens are the substances found on a foreign body or germ that trigger the production of antibodies in the body. The antigen on HIV that most commonly provokes an antibody response is the protein P24. Early in HIV infection, P24 is produced in excess and can be detected in the blood serum (although as HIV becomes fully established in the body it will fade to undetectable levels).

P24 antigen tests are not usually used for general HIV diagnostic purposes, as they have a very low sensitivity and they only work before antibodies are produced in the period immediately after HIV infection.

Some modern tests combine a P-24 antigen test with a standard antibody test, meaning diagnosis during the three month 'window period' is more likely.
Not true any more. More tests are available than just antibody tests.
 

Anteo

Member
From the article



Stop using outdated information. This isn't the 80s, or even the 90s anymore. We've come a long way.

Well then my country is fucking retarded, they have used the shitty 3 months excuse several times after babies got infected with HIV
 

Gaborn

Member
Its also more complicated and more expensive.

I'm not sure that that is true these days, although I'm open to being wrong. In any case it would be easy to lessen the risk by banning donations from MSM that had a sexual encounter (outside of a long term relationship) in the last 6 months. That at least would not punish monogamous gay couples but if the best testing is not in fact done would still offer protection for the blood supply.
 
I'm not sure that that is true these days, although I'm open to being wrong. In any case it would be easy to lessen the risk by banning donations from MSM that had a sexual encounter (outside of a long term relationship) in the last 6 months. That at least would not punish monogamous gay couples but if the best testing is not in fact done would still offer protection for the blood supply.

You have the standard antibody test and the PCR test.

A PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction test) can detect the genetic material of HIV rather than the antibodies to the virus, and so can identify HIV in the blood within two or three weeks of infection. The test is also known as a viral load test and HIV NAAT (nucleic acid amplification testing).

Babies born to HIV positive mothers are usually tested using a PCR test because they retain their mother's antibodies for several months, making an antibody test inaccurate. Blood supplies in most developed countries are screened for HIV using PCR tests. However, they are not often used to test for HIV in individuals, as they are very expensive and more complicated to administer and interpret than a standard antibody test.
 

kehs

Banned
I stopped donating blood to places that don't accept donation from the gays. I always make it a point to let them know too and that they should tell the higher ups it's fucked.

Shit is some outdated ignorant practice.
 

Raist

Banned
List of countries:

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

Algeria Indefinite
Argentina 1 year [3]
Australia 1 year 1 year [9]
Austria Indefinite [10]
Belgium Indefinite [11]
Brazil 1 year
Canada Indefinite [3]
Croatia Indefinite [12]
Czech Republic Indefinite
Denmark Indefinite
Estonia Indefinite
Finland Indefinite
France Indefinite
Germany Indefinite [13]
Greece Indefinite
Hong Kong Indefinite [14]
Hungary 1 year [3]
Iceland Indefinite
Ireland Indefinite
Israel Indefinite
Italy None specific [3]
Japan 1 year [3]
Malta Indefinite
Netherlands Indefinite [15]
New Zealand 5 years 1 year [3][16]
Norway Indefinite
Poland None specific
Portugal Indefinite
Philippines Indefinite
South Africa 6 months [3]
Slovenia Indefinite [20]
Spain None specific [3]
Sweden 1 year [21]
Switzerland Indefinite
Turkey Indefinite
United Kingdom (England and Wales) 1 year [22]
United Kingdom (Scotland and Northern Ireland) Indefinite [22]
United States Indefinite 1 year No restriction if last MSM activity was before 1977 [3]
Uruguay None specific
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom