Why can't gay folk give blood?

[Kathryn]

Good, lord people, just accept the discrimination and stop asking questions.

And yes the US's current policy is likely discrimination as noted above, the recommendation is for a year, other countries use a year and so on. Tattoos are typically also a year due to blood borne diseases that come with a window period. Why then a lifetime ban for men who have sex with men. Technically fwiw this would exclude me as my first boyfriend was raped as a young teen, I had sex with him... and that rule is written on the actual forms so as to exclude me from donating as well.

Are you banned for life or simply for a period of time? Can you provide a link to the policy?

 

[Rakhel]

Good, lord people, just accept the discrimination and stop asking questions.

And yes the US's current policy is likely discrimination as noted above, the recommendation is for a year, other countries use a year and so on. Tattoos are typically also a year due to blood borne diseases that come with a window period. Why then a lifetime ban for men who have sex with men. Technically fwiw this would exclude me as my first boyfriend was raped as a young teen, I had sex with him... and that rule is written on the actual forms so as to exclude me from donating as well.

Same here. My first boyfriend was a closet homosexual(He got caught a few times). It would exclude me and my current husband because certain diseases can lay dormant in the body for years.

 

[Kathryn]

Same here. My first boyfriend was a closet homosexual(He got caught a few times). It would exclude me and my current husband because certain diseases can lay dormant in the body for years.

Like my husband and me, you and Drolefille may not be allowed to give blood - for HEALTH reasons and concerns, and to protect the blood supply - NOT because any of us would be being discriminated against.

 

[Rakhel]

Like my husband and me, you and Drolefille may not be allowed to give blood - for HEALTH reasons and concerns, and to protect the blood supply - NOT because any of us would be being discriminated against.

And it didn't dawn on me until the first time I had seen this questioned asked on another forum years ago.
Which is funny, because it was after we had both donated plasma. They asked him if he had had sex with any men, but never asked me if any of the men I had had sex with had had sex with other men.

 

[Kathryn]

And it didn't dawn on me until the first time I had seen this questioned asked on another forum years ago.
Which is funny, because it was after we had both donated plasma. They asked him if he had had sex with any men, but never asked me if any of the men I had had sex with had had sex with other men.

I wonder what the actual policy is? Do you have a link? It's an interesting scenario.

 

[Rakhel]

I wonder what the actual policy is? Do you have a link? It's an interesting scenario.

Eligibility Criteria by Alphabetical Listing | American Red Cross
This site lists who is eligible, who isn't eligible and who may have to wait before becoming eligible, according the the Red Cross

 

[Drolefille]

Are you banned for life or simply for a period of time? Can you provide a link to the policy?

It was on the form in high school the first time I tried to give blood. Red Cross's site doesn't list a restriction but
Medical History & Eligibility Information - Blood Center - Stanford University School of Medicine
Lists a one year ban. Which makes no sense if it's really about risk and not some form of discrimination, ergo...

HIV has a window period, we all get that and unprotected anal sex, gay or straight, is the highest risk for transmission. Women are the most often infected these days. Reducing the restriction down to one year makes sense. And I strongly doubt the UK is being unsafe with their blood supply.

Of course I ate beef in Britain during the big mad cow scare and I'm not banned now either.

Same here. My first boyfriend was a closet homosexual(He got caught a few times). It would exclude me and my current husband because certain diseases can lay dormant in the body for years.

STDs don't typically last that long. Things like CJD and such might be a worry, but I can't think of anything that would actually lay dormant for more than about 6 months. You might have something like HPV and not know it but that's true of most people in the country.

And it didn't dawn on me until the first time I had seen this questioned asked on another forum years ago.
Which is funny, because it was after we had both donated plasma. They asked him if he had had sex with any men, but never asked me if any of the men I had had sex with had had sex with other men.

I know they're just minimizing their risk, but adding a time period doesn't do harm here.

 

[Kathryn]

Eligibility Criteria by Alphabetical Listing | American Red Cross
This site lists who is eligible, who isn't eligible and who may have to wait before becoming eligible, according the the Red Cross

Thank you.

From the site under HIV/AIDS:

You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

You are at risk for getting infected if you:
have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.
since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.
You should not give blood if you have any of the following conditions that can be signs or symptoms of HIV/AIDS

unexplained weight loss (10 pounds or more in less than 2 months)
night sweats
blue or purple spots in your mouth or skin
white spots or unusual sores in your mouth
lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin, lasting longer than one month
diarrhea that won’t go away
cough that won’t go away and shortness of breath, or
fever higher than 100.5 F lasting more than 10 days.


Actually my husband and I are both declined for a variety of reasons. He also lived and worked in Gabon and other western African countries for about a decade.

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Drolefille]

Thank you.

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain why a lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men makes sense when it's not the recommendation made by the people in charge of the blood supply nor is it comparable to other western countries?

 

[Kathryn]

Please explain why a lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men makes sense when it's not the recommendation made by the people in charge of the blood supply nor is it comparable to other western countries?

My point is that it's not DISCRIMINATION. Personally, I think that MANY of the bans in place are over the top, including the bans on me giving blood. They may be too restrictive but I don't believe they're discriminatory.

 

[fallingblood]

It was on the form in high school the first time I tried to give blood. Red Cross's site doesn't list a restriction but
Medical History & Eligibility Information - Blood Center - Stanford University School of Medicine
Lists a one year ban. Which makes no sense if it's really about risk and not some form of discrimination, ergo...

HIV has a window period, we all get that and unprotected anal sex, gay or straight, is the highest risk for transmission. Women are the most often infected these days. Reducing the restriction down to one year makes sense. And I strongly doubt the UK is being unsafe with their blood supply.

Of course I ate beef in Britain during the big mad cow scare and I'm not banned now either.

STDs don't typically last that long. Things like CJD and such might be a worry, but I can't think of anything that would actually lay dormant for more than about 6 months. You might have something like HPV and not know it but that's true of most people in the country.

I know they're just minimizing their risk, but adding a time period doesn't do harm here.

According to the CDC, men who have sex with men, are at the highest risk for AIDS or HIV. Now, it isn't just a little higher risk, but a significantly higher risk.

More so, this isn't discrimination as lesbians, celibate homosexuals, bisexuals who haven't had sex with a man, are not banned. The term is a man who has had sex with another man. This can include heterosexual males. And the reason is simply for reducing risk.

On a side note, I have never had sex with a man, participated in anything risky, never lived in Europe, or what not, and I can't give blood either. It was simply because I had a rare blood disorder, that left me in the hospital for a week, where I got a number of transfusions. Technically, there is only a limited waiting period (which allows most diseases or problems to show up), but it is suggested that I never give blood again because I am grouped in a higher risk. I don't think it is discrimination. I'm glad for the safeguards. As being one who has had blood transfusions, it makes me feel safer.





Just as a note, this has nothing to do with gay blood, or gay folks. It is not discrimination. It is simply safeguarding blood. Honestly, those who bypass these safeguards, and lie so they can give blood, in my opinion, are doing potentially far greater harm than what ever perceived discrimination they feel is against them.

 

[Kathryn]

According to the CDC, men who have sex with men, are at the highest risk for AIDS or HIV. Now, it isn't just a little higher risk, but a significantly higher risk.

More so, this isn't discrimination as lesbians, celibate homosexuals, bisexuals who haven't had sex with a man, are not banned. The term is a man who has had sex with another man. This can include heterosexual males. And the reason is simply for reducing risk.

On a side note, I have never had sex with a man, participated in anything risky, never lived in Europe, or what not, and I can't give blood either. It was simply because I had a rare blood disorder, that left me in the hospital for a week, where I got a number of transfusions. Technically, there is only a limited waiting period (which allows most diseases or problems to show up), but it is suggested that I never give blood again because I am grouped in a higher risk. I don't think it is discrimination. I'm glad for the safeguards. As being one who has had blood transfusions, it makes me feel safer.





Just as a note, this has nothing to do with gay blood, or gay folks. It is not discrimination. It is simply safeguarding blood. Honestly, those who bypass these safeguards, and lie so they can give blood, in my opinion, are doing potentially far greater harm than what ever perceived discrimination they feel is against them.

Now, now - you're making way too much sense for this forum.

 

[Drolefille]

My point is that it's not DISCRIMINATION. Personally, I think that MANY of the bans in place are over the top, including the bans on me giving blood. They may be too restrictive but I don't believe they're discriminatory.

Sooo even though there's a specific recommendation against the MSM policy, and there's not one against the policies you're discussing, it's absolutely the same thing? Odd, sounds different to me.

 

[Kathryn]

Sooo even though there's a specific recommendation against the MSM policy, and there's not one against the policies you're discussing, it's absolutely the same thing? Odd, sounds different to me.

Considering the fact that HIV/AIDS can lie dormant for years, even over a decade, just as "mad cow disease" can, I'd say it's wise to err on the side of caution.

 

[Rakhel]

I wasn't talking about STDs. and while HPV is a contagious illness, I wasn't referring to that either.
HIV and AIDs can lay dormant in the system for years before they become active.
HEALTH - HEALTH - AIDS Incubation Time Often Exceeds 9 Years - NYTimes.com
HIV Info
HIV for a Lifetime

 

[Drolefille]

Considering the fact that HIV/AIDS can lie dormant for decades, just as "mad cow disease" can, I'd say it's wise to err on the side of caution.

Source?

Window period

Antibody tests may give false negative (no antibodies were detected despite the presence of HIV) results during the window period, an interval of three weeks to six months between the time of HIV infection and the production of measurable antibodies to HIV seroconversion. Most people develop detectable antibodies approximately 30 days after infection, although some seroconvert later. The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing.[9] During the window period, an infected person can transmit HIV to others although their HIV infection may not be detectable with an antibody test. Antiretroviral therapy during the window period can delay the formation of antibodies and extend the window period beyond 12 months.[10] This was not the case with patients that underwent treatment with post exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Those patients must take ELISA tests at various intervals after the usual 28 day course of treatment, sometimes extending outside of the conservative window period of 6 months. Antibody tests may also yield false negative results in patients with X-linked agammaglobulinemia; other diagnostic tests should be used in such patients.
Three instances of delayed HIV seroconversion occurring in health-care workers have been reported;[11] in these instances, the health-care workers[12] tested negative for HIV antibodies greater than 6 months postexposure but were seropositive within 12 months after the exposure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test#cite_note-12

Twelve months catches it.

History of calls to change the policy

• 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.[27] 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. The FDA did not accept the proposal and had concerns about the data used to produce the model, citing that additional risk to recipients was not justified.

• In April 2010, the New York City Council passed a resolution calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to eliminate the ban stating "This ban was based on prejudice, a knee-jerk reaction, and misunderstandings about the HIV/AIDS disease. Given the constant need for blood, it does not make common sense to prohibit donations from an entire population."[28]

• On August 19, 2009, the Assembly Judiciary Committee in California passed AJR13, the U.S. Blood Donor Nondiscrimination Resolution, calling upon the FDA to end the MSM blood ban.[29]

• On June 1, 2010, the Washington, DC City Council passed a resolution calling on the FDA to "reverse the lifetime deferment of blood donations by men who have had sex with men since 1977 in favor of a policy that protects the safety and integrity of the blood supply that is based on an up-to-date scientific criteria."[30]

The UK lifted its ban on gay male blood donation in September 2011[17]. However, any man who reports having sex with another man within the twelve months will remain deferred from donating.[31] The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs recommended the policy change after a study concluded that a total ban may breach equality legislation and that the risk of HIV reaching the blood supply would only increase by approximately 2%.[32]

Which btw, is 2% of something like 1 in 2 million. So.. essentially no change.

Australia

Australia's individual states and territories each had their own policies on blood donations by MSM. Most previously had some form of the indefinite deferral, and they all changed to a 12 month deferral at different times between 1996 (SA) and 2000 (ACT, NSW).[3]
A comparison of confirmed HIV positive blood donations before and after the change did not see a statistically significant difference, though the number of HIV positive blood donations during the period with a 12 month deferral was greater. In all of the cases of HIV positive donations associated with MSM after the 12 month deferral, the donors had lied about their medical history and would not have been eligible under either criterion.[3]

MSM blood donor controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Drolefille]

I wasn't talking about STDs. and while HPV is a contagious illness, I wasn't referring to that either.
HIV and AIDs can lay dormant in the system for years before they become active.
HEALTH - HEALTH - AIDS Incubation Time Often Exceeds 9 Years - NYTimes.com
HIV Info
HIV for a Lifetime

I think you're misunderstanding what that NYTimes article says: AIDS develops when an HIV infection so completely shuts down your immune system. It's Acquired Immune deficiency syndrome. Actually I think the article is a bit confused. HIV is detectable in your blood after about 3 months, typically, long before you acquire AIDS. Also that article is from 1989 and we know a LOT more than we did then. That may be where some of the confusion comes from.

Even if people aren't experiencing effects, the tests they run on blood - all blood - catches the unknowing HIV cases. There aren't that many, most people who donate blood are aware, but they do happen.

 

[Rakhel]

did you read the rest of the links or are you just focused on the one.

 

[Drolefille]

did you read the rest of the links or are you just focused on the one.

I did read the others, the talk of an incubation period was for AIDS not for the HIV virus itself. You need to look at the idea of a Window period, which is the time in which a virus is in the system but not detectable.

One link stated the window period was 3 months to ???? But that's not really true.

To elaborate, where one article talks about the virus lying dormant, it's testable, but it's not having physical effects on your immune system. (That one is from 1999 as well, again we have some significant advances since then.) It is possible to lower your viral load to undetectable levels, but that's with the use of medication. I think I heard of one guy whose system supposedly shed the virus on its own, but haven't heard any more since.

 

[Kathryn]

Source?

I modified my initial post to say that AIDS/HIV can lie dormant for years, sometimes over a decade. As can "mad cow disease."

Of course, you can detect it with testing sooner. But the point is that a person can be infected and not know it for over a decade. Not everyone at risk gets tested before any symptoms.

And not everyone is honest with their partners about risky behavior either. But that's a whole other story.

From the Mayo Clinic website:

Clinical latent infection typically lasts 8 to 10 years. A few people stay in this stage even longer, but others progress to more-severe disease much sooner.

HIV/AIDS: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com


The Different Stages of HIV Infection

how long can hiv be dormant - Forum on Mental Health and HIV

HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This source says a person can be symptom free for up to twenty years (two decades).

HIV/AIDS