It’s important to note that these guidelines are required by the US FDA, and the American Red Cross has to adhere to them. As recently as last year, the Red Cross and other organizations have petitioned to relax the restrictions on male donors who’ve had sex with other men.
That’s why I specifically said “Since the 90s”. If they did catch HIV before their long-time relationship, it would have shown since. If it hasn’t shown in 20 years, they obviously don’t have it.
Cite that the Red Cross reviews the rules or even changed them? In many cases the rules are also laid down as laws, so the Red Cross would need to campaign to get them changed.
I find it absurd to keep rules that lower again the available pool, given that according to their own statistics, only 7% are eligible, and 3% of the population are willing to donate (with less than that, about 1.5%, for big cities), and then complaining that people are unwilling to donate, and blood is getting scarce. Well if they really had a problem, maybe they should make sensible guidelines.
We do have tests and know their waiting periods. There’s no medical reason to exclude people right from the start instead of administering the test if the waiting period is long passed.
In the U.K. you’re not allowed to donate blood for a certain period if you’ve recently been in certain parts of the world, the only one that I can remember off hand is sub Saharan Africa.
While I’m here any Brit Dopers, we need donors quite urgently.
It doesn’t hurt, doesn’t make you feel all weak or sick, and you may save someones life.
If you save just one persons life then you have achieved more then most people have in their lifetimes.
I have literally run back to work after donating, (due to lateness not fitness) and have been as right as rain.
If a born coward like me can do it regulary over the years then anyone can.
Why not give it a go !
Same thing in the USA - lots of deferrals & permanent ineligibility based on travel. One of the restrictions is if you’ve spent 3 months total in the UK since 1980, you’re permanently ineligible from donating.
I really would like to see a list of medical reasons for all those exceptions. In this case, is it Mad Cow Disease they are afraid of? But shouldn’t they ask “Did you eat beef in the UK between 19… and 20…” instead of permanent restriction.
Like I said, I find it hard to have pity on blood running low if they have dozens of not-medically-sensible broad umbrella restrictions.
Yes, the UK restriction is for Mad Cow. If they asked fully detailed questions that get to the specific issues in all cases you’d end up with a very long questionnaire, about details people couldn’t remember, and folks would either just answer “no” to everything or not contribute. They have to weigh the cost of each added question to the equation. It’s a fairly delicate balance.
Telemark, who can’t donate because of yearly trips to Bangalore.
Ah no doubt thats because AIDS,Bubonic plague, Malaria, Blackwater fever and a chronic susceptibility to bullshit is rife over here.
Or maybe it isn’t.
I always thought it was to prevent marthambles and the obstinate gleets.
The Red Cross is extremely restrictive in screening blood donors; anything that gives an increased risk will screen you out. This includes false positives on some of their tests that are known to give false positives (e.g. Hep C). They are making no value judgments, but gay sex has a higher chance of problems, so, to avoid the cost in time and expense of drawing blood and then discarding it, they make blanket rules.
And again, it’s not a Red Cross rule, it’s an FDA rule. cite:
“The Red Cross is required by law to follow all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and recommendations for the blood industry, including the current deferral of men who have had sex with other men. Along with other members of the blood banking industry, the Red Cross supports a data-based reconsideration of deferral criteria.”
That’s for malaria. Here’s the CDC map.
Yes, I know there are many faithful gay couples. Yet,
There was a conference last year to discuss the rules.
But it’s not up to the Red Cross; don’t blame them. Tell your congressman.
The problem is that here in the US it’s not explicit. The questionnaire does not address the possibility that you might not know that a past sexual partner is in one of the risk groups. A smart donor might connect the dots and do the responsible thing and decide not to donate, but I’m sure it doesn’t even occur to many of them.
You also get banned for a year for tattoos and piercings.
This.
The Red Cross accepts donations from gay men in a number of countries. Most countries that have lifted the ban have replaced it with a 12 month rule, meaning if you have not had male/male sex in the last 12 months you are eligible to donate.
Countries that have lifted their ban have seen no statistically significant decrease in the quality of their blood supply but have been able to collect more blood for it.
It would appear the US maintains the rule solely for the purpose of appealing to bigots as the scientific evidence available shows allowing men who have had male/male sex to donate with reasonable restrictions would not endanger anyone.
I also got banned from donating because I lived in the UK for too long, and prevented from donating once because I had donated too recently.
Neither make a lot of sense to me, but oh well.
In the U.K. we don’t give a flying fuck if you’re gay, its all about if your blood is contaminated.
Well, your body does need a certain time to replenish your blood. It’s not useful to take your blood and then have to give it back because you collapse on the spot.
But this is a temporary ban. Like you must wait x weeks after a flu, x months after a surgery, and so on, so that you are at the top level of fitness.
But isn’t everybody who lives in the UK banned due to Mad Cow? 
On a personal level, I suppose this may be true. But until November this year, we had a rule that was essentially the same as that in the USA.
It was cut from “lifetime” down to 12 months on 07/11/11.
Yes, they do test it. Every unit of it. But if the cost of the test is, for example, $1 per unit, and a specific group, identifiable on questioning, contributes 100 units that need to be tested for a total cost of $100, and you only get 1 unit out of 100 which is actually usable from that group after testing, then your testing cost is $100 per usable unit. That cost must be included in the price you charge for each usable unit, and passed on to the recipient. It’s much cheaper to ask the question, and reject all 100 before incurring that cost, than it is to test all of them and tack the cost of the failed 99 onto the 1 that passes. This isn’t discrimination, it’s simple economics.
[bold added] That’s right. It’s just 'cause you’re Brits, and our hatred over that one goes back a couple of hundred years. And you burned the White House down. 