I went to donate blood today. It sucked. (I almost threw up due to the fact that I had only eaten a bit of cottage cheese the entire day.)
Anyway, on the questionnaire, it actually does ask me if I’ve had sex with a man since 1977. I thought that it was just a joke. Since they screen the blood for AIDS anyway, what’s the big deal about non-virgin gays donating?
AIDS, hepatitis and other screenings are not 100% accurate, so the Red Cross and other organizations try to minimize the chances that they’ll get infected blood. Gay men are a very high-risk group for AIDS, so they get excluded, along with the recently tattooed and other people.
British screening also still excludes any man who’s had gay sex. It’s something that has ruffled many feathers in recent years, but given the numerous BSE frights, they’ve always been able to argue that they couldn’t be too careful. It’s common knowledge, however, (even among nurses working with blood donation) that men just lie.
I worked at a blood bank for four years in college. The idea behind banning people who answered “yes” to the “(Men) Have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977/ (Women) In the past tw lve months, have you had sex with a man who’s had sex with another man, even once, since 1977” question is that there is a period right after HIV infection when the screening process isn’t able detect the virus’ presence, but it’s still possible to pass along the infection to someone who receives the infected blood donation.
I always found some of the blood donation questions to be ridiculous, as it is entirely possible that you might not know the answer, even if you think you do. As in “Are you a woman that has had sex with a man who has had sex with another man since 1977?” Now I can answer this question truthfully, but my guess is a lot people can’t, as really, how much do you know about the person you are with?
Whenever they ask if I’ve had sex with a man since 1977, I want to ask “Do I count?”
It’s all about minimizing risks. Yes, the health professionals know that a lot of people will lie, but when people answer truthfully, the risk of transmitting a blood-borne pathogen decreases, even by just a tiny bit. And when people answer honestly, even if their answer ends up being wrong, then at least we’re trying to protect the blood supply.
And since there is no cure for HIV, and since the cure for Hep C is still a rough one which only “cures” in less than 40% of the cases, disease prevention is still paramount.
…they screen all donations for HIV, yet still ask the same questions at the beginning.
:dubious:
They do both because screening is imperfect. There’s a window of time, up to 6 months long, after which a person who is infected can transmit HIV, yet before they test positive. By asking the questions, they can reduce the number of donors who fall into this category.
This must rely on some definition of “six months” of which I was not previously aware.
Either that or I’ve fallen into some sort of time loop! That would be so cool, I’ve always wondered what the late 70s and early 80s were like. Better go poof up my hair and buy some big sweatshirts.
OK, that’s “during which” then.
And call home! Mom wants to go over schedule stuff with you tonight!
See ya soon! 
Dadgop
Qadgop the Mercotan is representing a fact, albeit in a slightly questionable way. It’s possible to carry HIV for six months before showing symptoms. I can’t find statistics on it, though. And if it’s such a risk, why don’t they also ask if people had unprotected heterosexual intercourse?
(Note that they don’t even ask about the use of condoms for gay men, it’s either yes or no.)
Don’t feel bad about not being able to donate. I can’t because I lived in the UK for several years and there is a tiny chance that I contracted vCJD (mad cow disease).
Tests aren’t perfect and they are erring on the side of caution.
That’s not what I said. It’s possible to be infected and contagious and not test positive for the virus. The most sophisticated tests on HIV, DNA assays (which are not inexpensive, and are tough to do on a large number of samples), can generally reduce the window down to about two weeks. But less sensitive tests can miss an infection for up to six months.
And some people go years with an HIV infection and show no symptoms. I diagnose about 2 new HIV cases a month at work. Many of them probably had the virus for over a year, and had no symptoms. So I do see this phenomenon up close.
See, I would have no objection to “Have you had intercourse with another man in the last year,” or the like. But no, it’s “ever.”
So if one answers yes to this question, do they just throw the blood out?
No, they won’t take the blood in the first place. You fill out the questionaire before they stick the needle in you.
I don’t know how other vampire organizations work, but when I’ve given to the Red Cross, you are given a second chance in case you have a crisis of conscience on the donating table. They’ll give you a pair of bar-code stickers to put on your blood bag, one means “all is groovy” and the other means “I lied, throw this blood away.”
I remember that from when I was in the military. I assumed it was so you could still have your blood drawn and not feel embarrassed by being refused. Most guys in the military would not want to admit they’d had sex with another man.
Living in Australia, I am not welcome to give blood because I previously lived in Europe for more than six months, and could conceivably have been infected with CJD from British beef.
When I lived in Ireland, naturally, I was not asked this question. It would have excluded virtually the entire population of potential donors.
Transfusion authorities will ask as many questions as they can to eliminate donors who present risks of HIV infection, CJD or whatever which, while not high in absolute terms, are nevertheless higher than the risks presented by other donors. They’ll tend to err on the side of caution since they want blood which is not only clean, but which a possibly slightly ignorant public accepts as clean. They’ll keep doing this to the point doing it any more will reduce the pool of potential donors below what they need. They want a pool of donors which presents the lowest possible risk, but which is still large enough to meet their needs.
They don’t give a stuff if a potential donor feels that their questions reflect unfairly on his lifestyle, choice of sex partners, country of abode, or whatever. Nor should they. The purpose of the exercise is not to make the potential donors feel good about themselves.
Is there any evidence vCJD or BSE can be transmitted through blood or blood products?