Prohibiting gays from donating blood

[WhyNot]

@Irishman

I don’t agree. We can cancel our elective surgeries. It’s hard to cancel non-elective surgeries. The article states

Inadequate to meet demand, less than a day’s supply, demand increasing faster than supply, shortage during a season when normally there is adequate supply… all of those points support that we should consider our evaluation criteria.

But nice username juxtaposition.

The article states, “A critical shortage of blood has forced the cancellation **of elective surgeries **in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Atlanta, the American Red Cross said today.” Nowhere does it say that non-elective surgeries have been canceled. (bolding mine)

The rest of the phrasing is propaganda by the journalist to drum up blood donations. Which I’m not opposed to, at all. It just shouldn’t be misinterpreted as saying anything at all about non-elective surgeries, because it isn’t. If they had even a single confirmed instance of a person whose non-elective surgery was canceled because of a lack of donated blood, that would have been front and center, as it would be even more effective as a call to action.

I don’t support the gay blood donation ban, for what it’s worth. I don’t think it’s based on good science; I think it’s public relations designed to make people feel safer about the blood supply that has the unfortunate effect of reinforcing untrue stereotypes. But I’m trying to answer the question in the OP:

@TroutMan

Are there studies on how many people die because of blood shortages? … How many, if any, lives would be saved with those additional units of blood, and is that more than the estimated one additional case of HIV?

My first link answers this explicitly:

Do people really die from lack of enough blood on hand to treat them?
In many countries, especially the developing world, yes, all the time. In the United States and most “developed” nations, while we are pleased to note that actual deaths from lack of available blood are rare, needs and therapeutic uses of blood are going up, and the donor population is going down. Often “extra” blood is “exported” from one city or state to another that needs it.

Here’s another, from a different blood collection company:

With regard to your second question: almost no one dies because of lack of blood on the shelf. Rather, the challenge is more often in getting the blood to the person in need at the time it’s needed most. For example, most ambulances don’t carry blood onboard and when accidents happen in more rural areas time can be a critical factor for patients experiencing severe blood loss. That’s why Memorial Blood Centers has started to supply LifeLink III helicopters (they serve the more remote regions in the Northland) with type O blood, since many patients may be up to an hour away from a hospital where blood supplies would be available.

http://www.mbc.org/News-Events/News-Events/Articles/AskTheDoc-Jan2012

People aren’t dying by the droves in the US from lack of blood donations. In other places, they are. But our margin is razor thin, and at any time, we could face a true shortage (as opposed to a localized shortage) in about a week.

However, due to the nature of blood as a very perishable product, we probably won’t EVER reach a point where we have less than a thin margin. Even if every person out there donated today, we’d still be facing an impending shortage of platelets before the end of the week, because we’d have to throw out all the platelets that weren’t used. Red blood cells and whole blood we’d need in about a month. Plasma in a year; thank goodness you can freeze plasma. Blood donation companies will always be begging for more donations, no matter how many donations they get. So articles designed to drum up donations need to be read with a critical eye. There is always an impending shortage, and there always will be, because you can’t keep blood products on the shelf for very long.

[JoelWhy]

@WhyNot

Please note that these are “elective surgeries” - which might mean delaying knee replacements for people in pain, or it might mean butt implants for vanity, the article isn’t saying. We have enough blood to keep people from dying, which is what the OP asked about. We are meeting our blood *needs *- we can’t always meet our blood wants.

I posted this in response to someone saying that there’s no point in lifting the ban because we’re already meeting all our blood needs. I was pointing out that we actually aren’t. Obviously, if you equate “needs” to solely mean non-elective surgeries, the article may be less impactful; but, I read “needs” to mean “demand”.

But, even if it we’re truly talking about actual needs, as you point out, even that is not being completely met. And, of course, the more important issue here is that we’re letting public opinion trump science.

[Quercus]

@JoelWhy

I believe Cecil’s article missed a major issue surrounding a focus on ‘confidence’ in the blood supply.

I used to be a regular blood donor. 10+ years ago, I received a notice from the Red Cross saying that I had received a ‘false positive’ result for HIV. Apparently, some 2% or 3% of the tests come back w/ false positives; the blood is retested and, if it comes back negative, it means you don’t actually have HIV. (This freaked me out at the time, but I confirmed with my physician father that it meant I was definitely NOT infected.)

But, that’s not the end of it. Because of the false-positive, I now have a lifetime ban from donating blood? Why? Well, it is NOT because there’s any risk that my blood is infected. Rather, this is a policy in place to ensure ‘confidence’ in the blood supply. So, they know with certainty that I’m not HIV positive, but they are so concerned about people being confident that the blood supply is not tainted that they are willing to pass on blood they know to not be infected.

Seems like a very strange policy to me…

I don’t know, but maybe they’re considering the possibillity that something about your blood makes it prone to false positives for the HIV test. So they don’t want to take the chance that if you keep donating lots of false positives will come up, with potential annoying complications.

[bup]

That’s a good guess. Maybe it would just be expensive to keep taking good blood and being told it tests positive for HIV.

[Melbourne]

@Measure_for_Measure

Here is a link to the eligibility requirements from the Red Cross. It is lengthy. I can understand why they don’t want to create an intricate boolean for HIV. See below.

I can’t donate blood because I have tingling in the fingers and toes.

I think that the explanation was that they thought they would be unable to detect nerve damage caused by the needle at donation. Whatever: it made me sad that I was unable to contribute.

[WhyNot]

@Quercus

I don’t know, but maybe they’re considering the possibillity that something about your blood makes it prone to false positives for the HIV test. So they don’t want to take the chance that if you keep donating lots of false positives will come up, with potential annoying complications.

Not only that, but blood is tested in group batches. Know those little vials they fill, as well as the big bag that’s the actual donation? One of those vials is mixed with several other people’s vials and that batch is tested for blood borne diseases. If that test is positive, they throw out everyone’s blood from the batch.

So yes, if there’s something that’s triggering a true OR false positive, it’s costing not just your donation, but half a dozen others, and that will happen every single time you donate. Very expensive, both monetarily and in terms of losing donated blood. And, since we have enough blood to cover our needs, it’s just not worth it. It would cost a lot more to test every donation individually all the time. Much more efficient simply to ask each person in that batch not to donate again.

(At least, that’s how it was explained to us in nursing school. I do not work for a blood bank, so I am not an expert or anything.)

[qazwart]

I know you’re suppose to let sleeping threads lie, but…
FDA: Celibate Gay Men Might Be Able to Donate Blood.

From the article:

Several advocacy organizations say the change would be a step in the right direction, but are concerned the revised regulation would continue to stigmatize gay men, because even those who have been monogamous for decades still would not be allowed to give blood.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

To quote from an old Watergate axiom : “Follow the money”.

Several big pharmacy companies are in the business of selling blood substitutes. Some are already on the market in various countries; others are still being developed or waiting for patents.

These are chemically manufactured fluids that are substituted in blood transfusions, either as oxygen-carriers, or just volume enhancers. As such, they are much cheaper to manufacture, but can be sold for just as much (or more) than the going price for a pint of donated blood.

If blood donation is opened up to more people (like gay men, or europe-visitors, etc.), the increased supply will restrict the market for sales of the commercial blood substitutes.

Obviously, an attack on our capitalistic free market health care system, so our big Pharmacy companies are alertly working to prevent this from happening.

[WhyNot]

@t-bonham@scc.net

To quote from an old Watergate axiom : “Follow the money”…These are chemically manufactured fluids that are substituted in blood transfusions, either as oxygen-carriers, or just volume enhancers. As such, they are much cheaper to manufacture, but can be sold for just as much (or more) than the going price for a pint of donated blood…

Maaaaaaybe, but if so, they’re playing the long con. Blood transfusions are cheaper than artificial blood products, so synthetics are not used as much. There’s no reason to believe that will change and indeed some good speculation in the other direction entirely: Real-Life True Blood: Synthetic Blood Is Coming — And So Are a Host of Potential Complications | WIRED Restricting the poor people’s supply of natural blood doesn’t make them able to afford the top shelf stuff.

[bup]

Relevant article from fivethirtyeight:

We could expect between 170,000 and 360,000 more donations a year if the ban were rescinded (entirely yields the 360K number, 5 year deferral yields the 170K).

It makes the excellent point I hadn’t considered, that although there are only ~4% of men who are gay/bisexual, the number of ‘one time in college’ men adds another 5% of the male population, and it’s one that would more likely meet a deferral period.

Maybe that point isn’t going to score points politically, but the naked stats look good.

[LAV25]

This whole thing seems to be lacking information on women who have penetrative (receptive) anal sex, and gay men who don’t. Based on Cecil’s statistic, shouldn’t there just be a check box for “Do you take it in the butt?” (probably not the best phrasing…)

[Ethilrist]

@LAV25

This whole thing seems to be lacking information on women who have penetrative (receptive) anal sex, and gay men who don’t. Based on Cecil’s statistic, shouldn’t there just be a check box for “Do you take it in the butt?” (probably not the best phrasing…)

They’re probably not too keen on tops, either.

[bup]

@Ethilrist

They’re probably not too keen on tops, either.

Disastrous PR aside (are you a *MANLY *gay man?), looking at it purely statistically, there’s not much data.

Here’s a study showing the HIV transmission risk is a lot lower, but still there. Are tops (‘insertive’ partners) really exclusively so? I don’t know. Other possibilities are possible means of transmission, too.

I really didn’t want to talk about penis sores this morning. But I take responsibility for my being here. Nobody else to blame.

[Chronos]

“Taking it in the butt” doesn’t cause AIDS. Taking it in the butt from someone who’s HIV-positive causes AIDS. Now, a woman can still get AIDS from anal sex with a straight man, if he’s infected, but all else being equal, he’s less likely to be infected than a gay man. It’s when you receive anal sex from other men who also receive anal sex from other men… and so on that the risk factor really adds up.

[YogSothoth]

I think its silly that gay people can’t donate blood, and some rules on restrictions if you’ve lived abroad seem equally fear mongering. But honest question, if you want to donate and you are restricted, can’t you just lie?

Last time I tried to donate blood, they asked if I was sick. I told them no, but I had a small canker in my mouth at the time. If I just lied, I probably would have donated, but I’ll defer to their expertise when it comes to infections and wounds. But like the poster said about mad cow, or the whole gay panic thing, you could just lie, its not like they’ll be able to tell from your blood where you’ve been or who you’ve dated

[Inner_Stickler]

@YogSosoth

I think its silly that gay people can’t donate blood, and some rules on restrictions if you’ve lived abroad seem equally fear mongering. But honest question, if you want to donate and you are restricted, can’t you just lie?

Because that’s ethical. If I lie and my blood is tainted, not only have I wasted the phlebotomist’s time and materials, but all the other people whose blood was tested with mine and who are actually legitimate donors get screwed.

It’s not that hard. If you can’t donate, volunteer at the canteen.

[qazwart]

There really are a lot of people who can’t donate: Me for example. One time a test showed up that I carried the antibodies for hepatitis. I never had hepatitis (I think this is something you would easily know) and I’ve never been exposed to anyone who had hepatitis. Further blood tests for hepatitis antibodies are negative. However, I’m forever banned for contributing blood.

Although there are local blood shortages here and there in the U.S., the overall blood supply is fairly stable. No one has been denied an operation because of a shortage of a major blood type. Sometimes a optional operation may need to be delayed, but otherwise, the U.S. blood supply is fairly good.

This means there’s a tendency to error on the side of caution. It’s better to ban someone or a group than to take a risk with the blood supply, and once a group has been banned for one reason or another, it’s hard to remove that ban. You don’t want to be the official who removed a ban, and then find a front page news article about a tainted blood supply.

[Urbanredneck]

All the problems of blood supply would end if they would pay people for donating.

Years ago I used to donate regularly, about every other month. But the last time I was lieing there donating it occurred to me that everyone in that room was getting paid except me. Here I was giving 2-3 hours of my time (if you count the time to drive there, donate, then come home to rest and recuperate) and I got nothing for it except some cookies.

Then I thought, yeah there are places where one can get $50 for donating blood. Plus I did some research and I found out they turned around and made like $100 for each pint I “donated”.

I quit donating after that.

[Cazzle]

I just found out I’m on the permaban list too. I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia 19 years ago, so they don’t ever want my blood. I’m just enjoying the twin blessings of having a medical condition that people (including some doctors) will tell you to your face that they “don’t believe in”, and simultaneously being considered too diseased to donate.

[puzzlegal]

@Urbanredneck

All the problems of blood supply would end if they would pay people for donating…

The first safety measure imposed on blood donations was requiring they be donations, and the forbidding payment for human blood that will be put into other people. I think it was Massachusetts that first implemented the ban on payments, and it saw the rate of post-transfusion hepatitis plummet as a result.

There are still lots of conditions they can’t test for that would be dangerous for recipients. “Do you feel healthy today?” is probably the single most important screening question. People who are selling their blood are FAR more likely to lie when answering that question.

I used to work in a blood lab where we could pay, because we were using the blood for research, not to treat people. We had some really skeezy donors. Lots of homeless men who appeared to be drug addicts.

I’m okay asking people to donate for some cookies, and not for cash.