"Gay men plan to offer to donate their blood in Des Moines Friday, but they expect to be turned away.
The downtown LifeServe Blood Center is among 53 sites nationally to be targeted for a “gay blood drive.” The effort is designed to protest the federal policy of barring gay men from donating blood."
Thoughts?
Wow, how stupid. Way to waste the resources that are needed to actually collect blood donations.
Most people who spent time visiting England from 1980-96 do not have Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease, but the consequences of letting a contaminated blood donation slip through are so dire that it is not worth the risk. The same reasoning applies to why they don’t take donations from men who have sex with men. Most men who have sex with men don’t have HIV, but they ARE more likely to have HIV than the average person and every effort must be taken to reduce the risk of infecting someone with HIV.
It’s also worth noting that lesbians can donate. Why? Because lesbians are NOT at elevated risk of HIV. It’s not about hating teh gayz. It’s about the reality of how HIV is spread and who is at most risk. It’s not homophobia if it’s based on a legitimate concern, folks.
The reason that I suspect ulterior motives at the FDA is that the Red Cross and other related organisations support reducing the the ban to only exclude men who have had sex with men in the last year, and yet the FDA decided to keep the ban on any man who has had sex with a man ever since 1977. The risk of HIV reaching the blood supply is from donors who are in the “window period” where they were recently infected and not yet detectable, and the window period is certainly less than a year.
“Most African-Americans don’t have HIV, but they ARE more likely to have HIV than other Americans and every effort must be taken to reduce the risk of infecting someone with HIV.” Would this statement strike you as either (a) not racist; or (b) a reasonable justification for banning blood donation by African-Americans?
As an aside, I find it incredibly annoying that the FDA et. al. insist on referring to it as a “deferral”. A lifetime “deferral” is not a deferral; it is a wholesale ban.
Haven’t gay men (closeted or otherwise) been giving blood like…forever? Don’t they test donated blood for HIV?
Errors can happen.
Will they be in disguise?
We are slightly (just slightly) more sensible north of the border. The ban up here against donors who have had male-male sex is now just 5 years.
What is this, 1986? Sheesh.
The comparison has definitely been argued before. I agree, the FDA should go with the Red Cross and similar organizations in relaxing their rules and stopping lifetime bans.
So…no one should be able to give blood because errors can happen?
He asked whether we test for HIV, so I explained their reasoning as to why that’s not enough. Look one post above yours for my opinion.
Edit: However, expect a massive lawsuit the first time an HIV infection occurs after relaxation of the rules, assuming the FDA ever relents.
If being black in and of itself created a higher risk for HIV, then that would make sense. However, I think it is pretty obvious that one isn’t at risk for HIV just from being black. The behaviors that transmit HIV are well known and can be screened for without bringing race into the issue (IOW, white or black, people who use IV drugs or are men who have sex with men are at high risk and are intended to be screened out of the donor pool).
Your link notes that men who have sex with men “represent about 4% of the male population in the United States but represent 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections”. To me, that makes it pretty common sense to screen out a group that is undeniably high risk. I think the activist behind this plan would be better off focusing his efforts on fighting HIV rather than trying to fight an effort to screen high risk donors out of the blood donor pool. It isn’t even about people who identify as gay - it’s about a specific behavior that all of us know raises the risk of HIV. A married heterosexual man who slept with another man is going to be rejected, and a gay virgin isn’t.
Yes, closeted men have been known to give blood - and, oh look, here is a case report about how a man who lied about the fact he was having sex with other men ended up infecting someone who received his blood donation with HIV.
But the assumption here is that gay men are all promiscuous. A gay man who isn’t a virgin but has only had sex with one person who’s faithful and has done for years is pretty safe, yes? It’s not like he’s spreading the gay: it’s an STD. Monogamous gay men are about as likely to spread STDs as monogamous straight couples. The dangerous activity is insertive sex – not the only way gay men have sex – with multiple partners.
Now, if the question was: “Have you had sex with anyone in the last (however long) who has not to your knowledge been tested for HIV or was tested and proved positive?” or something along those lines, I could get with that.
Agreed.
Men who have had sex with men are not “in and of itself” a high risk group by your reasoning either. People who have unprotected sex are.
The policy is bad because it is too broad and too closely resembles discrimination based on identity rather than actual behavioral risk factors. And because the information is impossible to test for. It is volunteered. It does not actually screen out anything, and just serves to piss people off. If the blood supply is relying solely on self reporting of a limited number of risk factors, it has some very serious flaws. Even if every gay person, and every other person they consider a risk were magically compelled to opt out, there would still be infected people in the system.
It doesn’t matter how much you disagree with the policy, what matters is the policy exists and everybody knows it so they’re just wasting time for everybody and potentially discouraging eligible donors*. I’d be equally annoyed if a group of pregnant/underweight/anemic/otherwise excluded people were to stage something similar. You can’t donate. Sorry, but that’s how it is, and being douchy isn’t going to change anything.
Being gay in and of itself increases risk of HIV exactly how, compared to being black?
As a gay man, I find the ‘blanket’ ban on donating blood offensive and ignorant. I’ve spoken to two dotors, one being an Infectious Disease Specialist who is well-known and highly respected by other doctors across the country. Both agreed that the ban is NOT based on scientific fact or medical risk of any sort. Modern screening processes for blood products are 100% effective in detecting the vast majority of STDs, HIV and Hepatitis especailly!
I take three meds for anxiety/depression/panic attacks (Paxil CR, Luvox and good ol’ Valium), a ‘psychostimulant’ to combat the fatigue and near-narcolepsy from Sleep Apnea (Nuvigil), an amphetamine for my severe Adult ADD (Adderall), two for Chrohn’s Disease (Bentyl,Linzess), a proton pump inhibitor for Peptic Ulcer Disease (Nexium) and a cocktail of Amoxicillin and Tetracycline whenever my ulcers flare up and/or start bleeding (to fight the H. Pylori bacteria infection that cause the Peptic Ulcer ‘flare ups’ (at least twice and as many as five times per year). To counteract the side effects of the Linzess and Nexium, I also take Phenergan for nausea and Fiorcet for heachaches that feel more like an aneurism in progress.
I also had a two-level (C4/5 & C5/6) Cervical Spine Fusion in 2005 (at the ripe old age of 30) and just found out two weeks ago that the disc at C3/4 is herniated and will require surgery within the next 6-8 months. In the meantime, it randomly presses against my spinal cord and hurts like a MoFo in my neck, shoulder and/or right arm when that happens. So now I’m taking Ultram for minor to moderate pain and have Dilaudid as an emergency backup (but it totally fucks with my gastro issues and meds)! Ironically, given the issues and meds I take, I need Ambien to knock me out at night. It’s amazing (and more than just a little scary) that I’'m fully functional (or at least I give that illusion to others)!
There is a price to pay for the benefit of all these drugs, though- my sex drive disappeared mroe than five years ago. I’m a 38-year old, vaguely attractive gay man who doesn’t date or have sex…and it doesn’t even bother me anymore…I just say that I’m celibate (but don’t bother to mention the meds) and then I can cast dispersions on other gay men and be completey justifed in feeling and acting morally superior to them!
So what about gay men who have been celibate for a long time? Their blood donation would pose less risk than any sexually active men or women, gay, str8 or bi!
For me, this is an issue of principal. I want and deserve the right to donate blood, but I wouldn’t ever actually do it unless someone’s life depended on it. One reason why is because I am HORRIFIED of needles and I often pass out when having blood drawn for regular lab work! I had outpatient surgery on my right hand last year (carpal tunnel release) and I passed out at my pre-op when the nurse drew blood. When she started looking for a good vein and prepping the needle and vials, I was having chest pains…then 10 minutes later, I woke up laying in the floor with her waving alcohol swabs under my nose trying to bring me to! But she was smart enough to get the blood as I was fading out and before I hit the floor…
But the real issue, beyond my irrational fears, is the long list of heavy-duty prescription drugs I take every day! The last mosquito that bit me is still at the Betty Ford Clinic! =)
They’ve announced it ahead of time. Make an appointment on an alternate day.