Why can't gay folk give blood?

[Drolefille]

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:


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

Again the individual would still test positive and all blood is tested for HIV. The reason for a ban is to avoid people donating in a window period PRIOR to it being at a detectable level. They still are HIV positive during any dormancy period. AIDS isn't relevant to the current topic because someone who has developed AIDS will not be donating at all.

As noted, the UK considered this and found a 2% increase in risk from a base risk of something like 1 in 2 million.

Modern tests can detect it within 12 days, although the ELISA tests are still more commonly used and have the 3-6 month window. A 12 month window more than solves the problem. And none of this acknowledges that heterosexuals with 'risky' behavior are still at a high level of risk for HIV. Not as high as MSM but high.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

CJD is a real problem as the tests, such as they are, take longer than the life of the blood donation.
You can not steralise for prions.

 

[fallingblood]

Again the individual would still test positive and all blood is tested for HIV. The reason for a ban is to avoid people donating in a window period PRIOR to it being at a detectable level. They still are HIV positive during any dormancy period. AIDS isn't relevant to the current topic because someone who has developed AIDS will not be donating at all.

As noted, the UK considered this and found a 2% increase in risk from a base risk of something like 1 in 2 million.

Modern tests can detect it within 12 days, although the ELISA tests are still more commonly used and have the 3-6 month window. A 12 month window more than solves the problem. And none of this acknowledges that heterosexuals with 'risky' behavior are still at a high level of risk for HIV. Not as high as MSM but high.

Maybe it is just because it still is safer to have certain bans until there is no risk? There is no problem there. And again, I don't see any discrimination.

It makes sense. Determine which groups are at higher risk. Then ban them from giving blood.

I mean, anyone who’s used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood. Why? Because they are significantly higher risk. Could they have remained free from such activities for years? Yes, but are they always going to be honest about it? No. And even if they are, there is still a risk. And why take such a risk? There is no reason to.

The whole idea that they are discriminating against gays though is simply ridiculous.

 

[Drolefille]

Maybe it is just because it still is safer to have certain bans until there is no risk? There is no problem there. And again, I don't see any discrimination.

It makes sense. Determine which groups are at higher risk. Then ban them from giving blood.

I mean, anyone who’s used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood. Why? Because they are significantly higher risk. Could they have remained free from such activities for years? Yes, but are they always going to be honest about it? No. And even if they are, there is still a risk. And why take such a risk? There is no reason to.

The whole idea that they are discriminating against gays though is simply ridiculous.

If it were significantly safer I suspect the UK would ban it and the current recommendation from the people who run the blood banks would not be one year. If we want to be safer ban all people who have had unprotected sex. Then you're really safe. But no we ban MSM for a longer period of time than is necessary.

I believe it is discriminatory, but even if it weren't it's stupid to omit part of your donor population for no good reason. H8 is nothingdiscriminatory like CJD when it comes to dormancy.

 

[fallingblood]

If it were significantly safer I suspect the UK would ban it and the current recommendation from the people who run the blood banks would not be one year. If we want to be safer ban all people who have had unprotected sex. Then you're really safe. But no we ban MSM for a longer period of time than is necessary.

The FDC has stated that when we can be certain there is no risk, the ban will be lifted. It is known that MSM are at a higher risk. So they are banned. Could a one year ban be fine? Probably, but it is also probably fine with many other times, such as people who use IV drugs, or have been paid for sex. It is easier just to ban them. And I see nothing wrong in that. It isn't like just MSM are the ones who are banned. Instead, we see many people who are at high risk being banned.

I believe it is discriminatory, but even if it weren't it's stupid to omit part of your donor population for no good reason. H8 is nothingdiscriminatory like CJD when it comes to dormancy.

It is for a good reason. Even with tests, there is a chance that something won't be detected. Instead of wasting time taking blood that is at high risk, and testing it, they simply bypass that.

And really who is it discriminating against? It isn't discriminating against gay men. It isn't discriminating against any race. It isn't discriminating against lesbians or bisexuals. It bans men who have had sex with men, regardless of any other factors, regardless of sexuality. I mean if we want to say that this is discriminating against people, I guess we can say it is also discriminating against prostitutes, drug users, some Europeans, etc.

 

[Drolefille]

The FDC has stated that when we can be certain there is no risk, the ban will be lifted. It is known that MSM are at a higher risk. So they are banned. Could a one year ban be fine? Probably, but it is also probably fine with many other times, such as people who use IV drugs, or have been paid for sex. It is easier just to ban them. And I see nothing wrong in that. It isn't like just MSM are the ones who are banned. Instead, we see many people who are at high risk being banned.
It is for a good reason. Even with tests, there is a chance that something won't be detected. Instead of wasting time taking blood that is at high risk, and testing it, they simply bypass that.

And really who is it discriminating against? It isn't discriminating against gay men. It isn't discriminating against any race. It isn't discriminating against lesbians or bisexuals. It bans men who have had sex with men, regardless of any other factors, regardless of sexuality. I mean if we want to say that this is discriminating against people, I guess we can say it is also discriminating against prostitutes, drug users, some Europeans, etc.

You didn't look at the bit about how the UK, the EU and Australia all have a different standard and the FDA is ignoring the recommendations of the people in charge of the blood.

So you think that maybe, just maybe, there's some weird double standard existing here when it comes to what recommendations are accepted. I'm not getting into how MSM discrimination is essentially gay discrimination in a different wrapper.

 

[fallingblood]

You didn't look at the bit about how the UK, the EU and Australia all have a different standard and the FDA is ignoring the recommendations of the people in charge of the blood.

So you think that maybe, just maybe, there's some weird double standard existing here when it comes to what recommendations are accepted. I'm not getting into how MSM discrimination is essentially gay discrimination in a different wrapper.

I don't think it really matters that others do things differently. It doesn't make it right, it makes it different.

They simply view the data in a different way. I don't think one can argue that since others do something though, that we should follow suit. I don't think that is a valid argument.

And since I see no discrimination here, I see no reason to change the ban until we can reduce the risk.

 

[Kathryn]

The FDC has stated that when we can be certain there is no risk, the ban will be lifted. It is known that MSM are at a higher risk. So they are banned. Could a one year ban be fine? Probably, but it is also probably fine with many other times, such as people who use IV drugs, or have been paid for sex. It is easier just to ban them. And I see nothing wrong in that. It isn't like just MSM are the ones who are banned. Instead, we see many people who are at high risk being banned.
It is for a good reason. Even with tests, there is a chance that something won't be detected. Instead of wasting time taking blood that is at high risk, and testing it, they simply bypass that.

And really who is it discriminating against? It isn't discriminating against gay men. It isn't discriminating against any race. It isn't discriminating against lesbians or bisexuals. It bans men who have had sex with men, regardless of any other factors, regardless of sexuality. I mean if we want to say that this is discriminating against people, I guess we can say it is also discriminating against prostitutes, drug users, some Europeans, etc.

It's discriminating against the US military and dependents - it was the military's fault that I was living in Germany in the 1990s! It's discriminating against those who love to get tattoos and add to their collection once a year or so! It's discriminating against oilfield workers who work in Western Africa! OMG let's storm the Red Cross Bastille!!!!!

 

[Drolefille]

I don't think it really matters that others do things differently. It doesn't make it right, it makes it different.

They simply view the data in a different way. I don't think one can argue that since others do something though, that we should follow suit. I don't think that is a valid argument.

And since I see no discrimination here, I see no reason to change the ban until we can reduce the risk.

The imaginary risk.

It's always easiest to see no discrimination when you aren't being affected.

 

[Kathryn]

I can never give blood again! I'm ******! This white, heterosexual, monogamous, well to do woman is being discriminated against!

 

[Drolefille]

It's discriminating against the US military and dependents - it was the military's fault that I was living in Germany in the 1990s! It's discriminating against those who love to get tattoos and add to their collection once a year or so! It's discriminating against oilfield workers who work in Western Africa! OMG let's storm the Red Cross Bastille!!!!!

Show that there's significant doubt of the risks involved and at the very least you could show the FDA being irresponsible during a time of serious shortages in our blood supply. Failing to keep up with modern technology and advances in knwowledge is negligence at best. The fact that it targets MSM -beginning as a likely reasonable response to HIV-just means you don't have to deal with is, so no big deal to you. But you'ved evidenced a significant lack of understanding of HIV here and that suggests why the 'panic' continues.

 

[Panda]

I thought it was to do with the statistically higher likelihood of gay men (or more accurately men who have sex with other men) of having STDs?

 

[Drolefille]

I thought it was to do with the statistically higher likelihood of gay men (or more accurately men who have sex with other men) of having STDs?

See some of the stuff posted in this thread, a year waiting period introduces no significant amount of risk. Some STIs don't matter for donation and some do.

 

[Panda]

See some of the stuff posted in this thread, a year waiting period introduces no significant amount of risk. Some STIs don't matter for donation and some do.

Sorry my post has a UK spin on it where there is a one year period, kind of took that as a given as being the norm.

 

[Drolefille]

I can never give blood again! I'm ******! This white, heterosexual, monogamous, well to do woman is being discriminated against!

And your privilege is showing.

 

[Drolefille]

Sorry my post has a UK spin on it where there is a one year period, kind of took that as a given as being the norm.

Haha, gotcha. The year makes reasonable sense due to the potential window period of HIV lasting up to a year in rare cases. Modern tech can get that down to about two weeks, but most use the old tests because they're more sensitive. So a year makes reasonable sense.

 

[fallingblood]

The imaginary risk.

It's always easiest to see no discrimination when you aren't being affected.

I can't give blood either. I don't feel discriminated against. I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

[Kathryn]

And your privilege is showing.

My privilege?

First of all, I'm not ashamed of my "privilege." When I was an abused, dirt poor, miserably married, uneducated young woman, I wasn't ashamed of my "privilege" then either - my privilege to be alive, fairly healthy, living in the US, and able to get out and find a job.

Now that I've dug my way out of that morass by hard work and better decisions, I'm not going to apologize for it or be ashamed of it.

Still can't give blood though. Ever.

 

[Drolefille]

You don't understand what the word means, and I'm not surprised.

Bootstraps and all that, I'm sure.

 

[Kathryn]

You don't understand what the word means, and I'm not surprised.

Bootstraps and all that, I'm sure.

I understand what you meant it to mean - I'm just not buying your definition. Your perspective is just as arbitrary as you think mine is.