Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

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.

To be fair, anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal sex in term of spreading STIs, so this is not just a focus on multiple partners that seperates gay men from other high risk demographics

At the same time despite being less of a risk, the fact that black women are allowed to donate tells you how hypocritical the policy is. All the blood is tested before being approved for use so there is no fear of infection. The Red Cross should either hold other high risk groups to the same regulations or get rid of this ridiculous policy

My fear is that eliminating the restrictions will lead to some truly disgusting scare tactics, and a drop in Red Cross support in some areas. I'm not concerned about right wing talk personalities fear mongering, but I am concerned about elected officials and others who know better poisoning the well and validating stupidity instead of combatting it. I certainly fully support ending the policy of course

 

[Gaborn]

You have the standard antibody test and the PCR test.

Actually it's not quite that simple. According to the CDC the US uses 4 HIV related tests on all blood:

HIV/AIDS HIV- I Antibody test, HIV-1/2 Antibody test, HIV-I p24 Antigen test, Nucleic Acid Test (NAT).

From what I can see the NAT test mostly replaced the p24 test as the "early" detector and can be effective 1-3 weeks after infection.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Gay men can't donate blood in the U.S.? @_@

You can't get AIDS from sexing with women.

 

[injurai]

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.

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

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.

Well to me the most important thing is keeping people safe. Nothing would be worse than having the very blood that was meant to save you become your death sentence.

 

[Gaborn]

You can't get AIDS from sexing with women.

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[The Technomancer]

Gay men can't donate blood in the U.S.? @_@

Admittedly I'm not very familiar with the subject but based on the article it seems like the kind of restriction that made sense at the time (lack of a consistent test coupled with AIDS statistics) that now has no reason to be on the books. Its discriminatory but at the time one can't deny how much AIDS disproportionately affected gay men.

 

[ephemeral garbage]

I went to donate blood in honor of a friend of mine when she died, about 12 years ago, and got turned away for this. I'm still waiting to do it. Good news, I hope they figure it out soon.

 

[fluffydelusions]

The old people in charge are afraid the gay blood may be passed on and make more gays lol. Honestly I never heard of this law until today...ridiculous.

 

[Emerson]

Admittedly I'm not very familiar with the subject but based on the article it seems like the kind of restriction that made sense at the time (lack of a consistent test coupled with AIDS statistics) that now has no reason to be on the books. Its discriminatory but at the time one can't deny how much AIDS disproportionately affected gay men.

I don't think "discriminatory" should be a bad word in a case like this. Sure, I guess it is technically discrimination, but there is no question that homosexual men have had statistically significant higher incidence of HIV. As far as I know that's still the case, but if the feeling among the scientific community is that the risks aren't high enough to warrant the ban considering the modern testing, then I'm certainly all for lifting it. More blood is always good.

 

[Gaborn]

I don't think "discriminatory" should be a bad word in a case like this. Sure, I guess it is technically discrimination, but there is no question that homosexual men have had statistically significant higher incidence of HIV. As far as I know that's still the case, but if the feeling among the scientific community is that the risks aren't high enough to warrant the ban considering the modern testing, then I'm certainly all for lifting it. More blood is always good.

I think the key is that the current ban is too blanket and doesn't really use what we know. Protecting our blood supply should be based on best practices and smart targeting so that we parse out the high risk people gay OR straight and allow the low risk people gay or straight to donate. We know it's not inherently being gay that makes you a high risk person, it's the high risk behaviors that are more common among (but neither exclusive to or practiced by all) gay men that are problematic. So the key should be targeting people that practice these behaviors (multiple partners, not using protection) for exclusion.

 

[injurai]

The old people in charge are afraid the gay blood may be passed on and make more gays lol. Honestly I never heard of this law until today...ridiculous.

According to them its also a choice, so what do they have to fear?

 

[The Technomancer]

I think the key is that the current ban is too blanket and doesn't really use what we know. Protecting our blood supply should be based on best practices and smart targeting so that we parse out the high risk people gay OR straight and allow the low risk people gay or straight to donate. We know it's not inherently being gay that makes you a high risk person, it's the high risk behaviors that are more common among (but neither exclusive to or practiced by all) gay men that are problematic. So the key should be targeting people that practice these behaviors (multiple partners, not using protection) for exclusion.

Right, and the fact that they're examining the ban suggests that they think they have a way to filter out the high-risk donors (at least I hope). I wonder what it is though, I doubt self reporting is very effective.

 

[1-D_FTW]

Man why are blood donations declining? That is so weak.

I'll tell you why I have zero incentive to donate: because the health care industry is rotten to the core in this country. Why should I donate something they're then going to charge massive markup on if I ever need it in a hospital? As far as I'm concerned, if this is the system of crooks our country is going to have, they should be paying top dollar for it.

 

[linkboy]

Please tell me you're joking.

I'm thinking that was sarcasm (at least I hope so).

 

[Raxus]

The HIV scare has passed so it seems about time to allow gays to donate again.

There are measures in place to test blood as well correct?

Off-topic: I'm A-! Represent!

 

[.GqueB.]

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 wouldn't mind getting the "gay". I walk around chelsea and all I see are snappy dressers and nice looking chests.

 

[cutmeamango]

The process of blood testing and stocking is really expensive. That's why they exclude people so easily with interviews and medical history. They just got to maintain a threshold of donations.
If they can't keep up, they lower the standards of prevention.
When we went to donate, my friend was rejected because he had more than 5 partners in 3 months and another because he had a tattoo done recently.

I believe that if the donations are really down, they could open up to higher risks since they would have to make those tests anyway.

 

[Xavien]

I would give blood but I'm not allowed because I might be incubating vCJD (because i was born before the Mad Cow scare)

I understand being pro-active in preventing contagion, but at some point you're gonna need to relax some restrictions to get more blood donors.

So I'm all for this re-examination.

 

[noah111]

Gay men can't donate blood in the U.S.? @_@

Seriously, I thought this was going to be an Onion piece or something. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Meicyn]

I'll tell you why I have zero incentive to donate: because the health care industry is rotten to the core in this country. Why should I donate something they're then going to charge massive markup on if I ever need it in a hospital? As far as I'm concerned, if this is the system of crooks our country is going to have, they should be paying top dollar for it.

And if they have to pay top dollar for it, they are merely going to pass those costs on to the people who need it. I acknowledge the problem myself and share your utter disgust with our health care industry, but in the meantime, the fundamental issue remains: people need blood. I don't feel that being spiteful to the industry is particularly helpful.

 

[lacinius]

Canadian Blood Services is at long last moving forward with lifting the ban:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/story/2012/07/05/sby-blood-donation-revision.html


**edit... of course the Harper Government controlled Health Services Canada agreeing to lift the ban remains to be seen.

 

[cutmeamango]

Canadian Blood Services is at long last moving forward with lifting the ban:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/story/2012/07/05/sby-blood-donation-revision.html

Canadian Blood Services recently met with members of the LGBT community and other community stakeholders to discuss changing the restriction to five to 10 years, said the organization’s spokesperson Ron Vezina. He said there is more to consider than simply donor prejudice.

From lifetime to 5/10 years.
And that's with change of partners.
If you have been with the same partner for 5 years, then you'd be allowed.

 

[mavs]

The process of blood testing and stocking is really expensive. That's why they exclude people so easily with interviews and medical history. They just got to maintain a threshold of donations.
If they can't keep up, they lower the standards of prevention.
When we went to donate, my friend was rejected because he had more than 5 partners in 3 months and another because he had a tattoo done recently.

I believe that if the donations are really down, they could open up to higher risks since they would have to make those tests anyway.

That's true, if they test everything no matter what it is simply a matter of volume. When the volume goes down then widening the donor base is a valid response.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I'll tell you why I have zero incentive to donate: because the health care industry is rotten to the core in this country. Why should I donate something they're then going to charge massive markup on if I ever need it in a hospital? As far as I'm concerned, if this is the system of crooks our country is going to have, they should be paying top dollar for it.

Do you realize how absolutely moronic this sounds? You want people to die because from not being able to have blood transfusions because you don't like companies making money? FFS this is just beyond ridiculous.

 

[zethren]

We have a ban on blood donations from gay people...?

For fucks sake.

 

[el retorno]

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

As gaborn pointed out being gay does nothing. Having unprotected sex with multiple people does. If you have sex with one man your whole life why shouldn´t you be allowed to give?

I think it comes from the old idea that gay men are more promiscuos. Minority women have a high risk but they can give. Something as simple as the fact that your gay shouldnt prohibit someone. They should ask follow up questions. Also don´t they test the blood?

 

[Prez]

Well to me the most important thing is keeping people safe. Nothing would be worse than having the very blood that was meant to save you become your death sentence.

You'd be surprised how much time people with HIV have left to live these days: about 40-50 years after infection if treatment is started early. A 20-year-old with HIV can still live to be 69. And this number keeps increasing so it won't take long before the average life expectancy of an HIV-positive person is the same as that of an HIV-negative person. You do have to take medication for the rest of your life though and people in third world countries aren't as fortunate.

 

[Sallokin]

You'd be surprised how much time people with HIV have left to live these days: about 40-50 years after infection if treatment is started early. A 20-year-old with HIV can still live to be 69. And this number keeps increasing so it won't take long before the average life expectancy of an HIV-positive person is the same as that of an HIV-negative person. You do have to take medication for the rest of your life though and people in third world countries aren't as fortunate.

Then you have a question of who is going to pay for that medication. I mean that stuff can't be cheap, and you know that it would lead to a lawsuit which would probably cause agencies to put more stringent checks in place for donating blood and then round and round we go.

 

[Levi]

If they lift the ban, I'll start giving blood. I went once, saw the survey, was so turned off I haven't ever gone again.

 

[hockeypuck]

Red Cross says donations down 10%? Meh, the cynic in me says let the donations drop another 10%. Maybe then all the hospitals will re-examine their transfusion policies and make them stricter. We over-transfuse all the time. More people probably die from receiving transfusions than from not having them.

 

[cousins]

People are still ignorant regarding HIV in 2012? ay ay ay

How would everyone feel if the red cross barred black women as a whole from donating?

It's about behavior, not which demographic you're a part of.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Please tell me you're joking.

Obviously, I'm just mocking an outdated rule. For example, a modern day woman might like to have anal sex as much, or perhaps more, than a homosexual man. I've been in the homosexual thread a few times and it seems there are a percentage of gay men don't have anal sex due to preference, yet they are still banned from giving blood.

 

[Reuenthal]

Makes sense to lift such restriction.

 

[Izick]

Gay men can't donate blood in the U.S.? @_@

That's exactly what I thought when I read that title. You've got to be fucking kidding me. What a fucking joke.

 

[Gaborn]

Obviously, I'm just mocking an outdated rule. For example, a modern day woman might like to have anal sex as much, or perhaps more, than a homosexual man. I've been in the homosexual thread a few times and it seems there are a percentage of gay men don't have anal sex due to preference, yet they are still banned from giving blood.

I figured you were, just wanted to be sure. On GAF you NEVER know. And yep, that does happen.

 

[Trin]

I know there was mass hysteria in the 80's about HIV, which is still an awful excuse, but the fact that kind of ignorance still exists today is what boggles my mind.

Not to mention, aren't lesbian women at the lowest risk of transmitting STI's? Or are they not banned from donating their "gay blood"?

 

[Izick]

What's next? Are they going to allow gay people to vote?

 

[Gaborn]

I know there was mass hysteria in the 80's about HIV, which is still an awful excuse, but the fact that kind of ignorance still exists today is what boggles my mind.

Not to mention, aren't lesbian women at the lowest risk of transmitting STI's? Or are they not banned from donating their "gay blood"?

Lesbians aren't banned. Gay men are banned basically because of the stereotype that we're all hyper-promiscuous which was still commonly believed in the 80s when the policy was formed.

 

[NomarTyme]

I've donating over little over 2 years and I been noticing a huge decline in blood donation. Its really sad state of affair because I see way more senior citizens donating than young people.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Sounds like a good idea.

And people please, this is the Red Cross. Try not to judge them too harshly.