Err… I mean 1997. Stupid numbers.
Well, not to get persnickety, but anybody who meets the general age and weight requirements can donate blood. What the Red Cross and other organizations are trying to do is determine if they should use your blood.
If you answer “yes” to any of the questions that are The Big Taboo for blood donation, they’ll turn you away before doing any medical workup on you. If you want to lie so you can go through the donation procedure for some reason, they’ll give you another shot at redemption – you can pick from one of two bar-code stickers to place on your donation form. One sticker is the bar-code for “Yes, use my blood” and the other is the bar-code for “Nope, don’t use it.” (This info is seven years old; if somebody can provide updated info – BubbaDog? – please do so.) If you put the “don’t use” bar-code on the form, the ARC will dutifully draw your blood, transport it to the processing facility with the other pints, and then destroy it.
Testing the blood is a relatively expensive process, and being overly cautious when screening donors is one way of keeping medical costs down while trying to keep the blood supply (and, one presumes, the semen supply) as contamination-free as possible.
It has been explained to me about blood donation (batch testing).
But blood donation is NOT sperm donation. And respectable sperm bank should be doing the entire battery of semen-transmitted disease tests BEFORE they are allowed to donate, no matter who they sleep with. Which makes it ridiculous and unfair to discriminate against gay men.
AAAH! 1977! Gaaaah!
I’m not sure what it is I’m not getting across here. I know what happens when the nice people take away my bag o’ blood. I understand why they exclude certain high-risk populations and I support the principle. I just think that a universal ban on anyone who’s had m/m sex since 1977 is unnecessary, inconsistent with their other AIDS-related regulations, and detrimental to society for the reasons I mentioned before. Yes, gay men who’ve gotten any since 1977 are higher-risk than the general population. But do you really think that a guy who last had sex with another man five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years ago is MORE likely to have HIV and not know it than a guy who last had sex with a heroin-using prostitute ONE year ago? Because the former is not allowed to donate, but the latter is.
Umm… no they are not allowed to donate. Whether that prositute is male or female, by having sex with them they fail under the:
Do not donate if you:
- 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
I agree, with just a small nitpick: I’d say that a respectable sperm bank should be doing the HIV test before and after the donation, and use a 6 month quarantine.
If you look at the website of any respectable sperm bank (ex: California Cryobank), you can see the testing process. It’s not like some guy walks in off the street, shoots a load into a jar for a woman waiting down the hall, and disappears.
This whole issue is so preposterous to me. I can’t see a single valid medical reason for this. And I am pissed beyond words at the condescending unscientific pablum coming from the mouthpiece of the ASRM. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. “Won’t someone think of the mommies?” I am a heterosexual woman who in the past considered donor sperm. Ms Spokeswoman can stop speaking for my supposed protection, thankyouverymuch.
From what I’ve been able to find out on the web, there has been only one known case of HIV transmission by anonymous DI since HIV antibody testing was available. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find what kind of testing, if any, was done on that sample. Why aren’t the details of that case all over the news and research, rather than some vague idea that we’ll “fix” things by stopping the big bad gay man?
So it would be all right if it was just once, in 1960, for 20 minutes?
runs and hides
Anyone who’s spent time in any of several subsaharan African countries is barred from donating blood, so I would imagine this applies to people donating sperm.
In many urban areas, more than one in 30 gay men is infected with HIV, and as noted, many don’t know it. Testing is not a hundred percent effective, either. No doubt screening occurs but excluding high-risk segments of the population is an important part of keeping the process as safe as possible. People still do contract HIV through the blood supply at least; if you can keep a substantial majority of the HIV-infected populace out of the process entirely, it makes a certain amount of sense.
Behavior counts, of course, but how do you intend to honestly survey behavior? I’m sure some men lie about MSM status to donate sperm, but how many more would lie if they were given in depth surveys of their prior sexual behavior? How much probative value would that have in establishing a potential donor’s safety? It’s nonsensical to claim that it would be a useful test for donors because there’s no way to measure behavior in an accurate way.
I don’t know how accurate the newer nucleotide test is; it’s possible that it’s good enough to make these policies outmoded. Personally, I’m rather offended that I can’t donate blood but please debate the issue honestly at least. Diogenes’ kneejerkism is dishonest and doesn’t help the argument in the slightest, especially if we hope to effect some change in the policy sometime soon.
I don’t know about Canada, but you won’t find one in the US. Those rules are set by the FDA, not the organzations that suck your blood.
As for the expense of testing blood - I don’t know about other organizations, but the Red Cross tests every pint it collects. If the Red Cross tests every pint it collects, why doesn’t the FDA loosen up its restrictions? Hm?
looks at Congress
These numbers are confusing the hell out of me. If I’m reading that right, than 56% of HIV diagnoses from the last four-year period were not homosexual men, right? And among men only, 39% of HIV cases were heterosexual men? That seems like a pretty even split to me.
Because you can still get HIV from blood that tests negative on an HIV test.
You’re completely missing the point elfbabe is making.
If i had sex with a heroin-shooting hooker 13 months ago, the criteria do not exclude me from donating blood.
If i had sex with a man 25 years ago, the criteria do exclude me.
Six-month quarantines may not do any good. There’s evidence the HIV can survive extended periods of freezing. Heat is a better way to kill it, but you can’t heat sperm donations to the degree necessary to kill HIV – kinda defeats the point.
Umm … what? You’re seriously arguing that policies should be instituted to make this procedure more dangerous?
I will grant you that, if proper testing procedures are following, HIV can be detected 99.9 percent of the time in a blood (and, one presumes, a sperm) sample. But which group of samples would you rather have as a universe from which to choose: Samples that have a 0.1 percent chance of carrying HIV, or samples that have a 0.0001 chance? (Note: I’m extrapolating those numbers, and probably doing it incorrectly – it’s an example for example’s sake.)
I seriously doubt this is an effort to demonize gay men. It’s just a statistical fact: Gay men are the largest portion of the populace infected with HIV. The procedure in question is completely voluntary on the part of the recipient – in other words, lives are not at risk if gay men are not allowed to be anonymous donors. And, again, a gay man can be a directed donor.
I don’t see this as a “gay man is bad” issue. It’s a scientific issue.
Statistically, yes. The number of men who have gotten HIV from women is a small portion of the overall population of those infected. Male-to-female transmission of HIV is eight times more likely than female-to-male (cite).
:o :o :o :o
Oops. That was me. Sorry, lno.
Which is why I said “loosen restrictions”, not get rid of them entirely. The way it currently stands, two men who have been in a committed relationship for the past 20 years can’t give blood. I could have a one-night stand with a guy tomorrow night and give blood Friday. If the guy doesn’t tell me he’s bisexual I’m more unsafe than the two gay guys. That’s stupid.
My reference here is the Community Blood Center based in the Kansas City area.
I gave blood in Dec of 2004 and the “sticker” method was used at that time.
Now there is a new method. I was told to take my info sheet with me. They placed a sticker on the info sheet and asked me to call the toll-free number written on the sheet and give them my sticker number if, for any reason, I thought that my blood posed a health problem.
The tech told me that not only did this help with the people who felt they were pressured to give but knew they were a risk, it also helped if anyone in the “safe” catagory had an infection that was not symptomatic until days after donation. In other words, I passed the screens and am considered a safe donor but if i get sick within the next few days, I can warn the blood center that my donation may carry an infection.
Look at it this way – they’re saying 61 percent of the males who tested positive for HIV were homosexual, and their homosexual behavior was the primary (or only) risk factor. The other 39 percent of males who tested positive had other risk factors – drug use, heterosexual activity, accidental exposure, etc. All those together add up to 39 percent, but no single one is 39 percent.
Does that make sense?
As I mentioned before, I don’t agree, but I sort of see why higher-risk groups are excluded from blood donation. As has been explained to me many times by CuriousCanuck (who works for the blood people up here), I (who am in a similar position to Sauron but with a yet-more-embarassing disease I tested false-positive for) help them by not donating because of the tremendous cost involved in testing and retesting blood, which places an insupportable burden on a charity organization.
Sperm banks can, and should, be able to afford the extra care. They are not charities; they make money. They are not doing batch testing which necessitates the retesting of every sample individually. It was my understanding that the exclusion of high-risk groups was not due to the fact that tainted blood might get in, it was due to the extra cost involved in finding positive results on tests and needing to retest everyone else in a batch.
Eye boogers? Toe fungus? Penile cancer?
Tell me if I’m close.