Red Cross, Giving Blood, etc....

[Jodi]

MANNY says:

Poor people are at higher risk to have Hep. Donated blood is routinely screened for both. What’s your point?

My point is that the rationale for not allowing sexually-active gay men to donate is not to discriminate against them but to protect the blood supply. Now, if you want to say that this practice does not protect the blood supply, or is outmoded and counter-productive because the pros of accepting blood and testing it outweigh the cons, fine. But I am not required to see the Red Cross’s actions as unreasonably discriminating against gay men, any more than I think they unreasonably discriminate against drug-users or travellers. Again, it is the disease that is theoretically being selected out; not the behavior.

The boycott is not against all blood collection organizations, just the Red Cross, which supports the FDA restriction.

As I have already stated, in many areas, the Red Cross is it so far as “blood collecting organizations” are concerned; there are no others.

I daresay that if the local hospitals start running short of blood, they’ll damn skippy find an alternative source.

Such as . . . ? Once again, with feeling – there is no alternate source. What do you propose, starving the Red Cross out of existence by witholding donations and in the meantime allowing people to die? Furthermore, a shortage in the blood supply leads to restrictions on “elective” surgical procedures, no matter how necessary they may seem to the patient; it is hardly a status to be actively sought.

The point is that the Red Cross’ near-monopoly on blood (and until this policy, my money) gives them enormous political clout in the legislature and the medical community.

Sure it does; and so long as they use that political clout to accomplish the good they do in fact accomplish, they will have my unqualified support.

To me, you propose throwing the baby out with the bathwater; hamstringing a legitimately good organization in the name of preventing one secondary practice you consider discriminatory. Do they refuse to give blood (or other assistance) to gays? No. Do they refuse to have gays as volunteers? No. If you want to work to end the restrictions on gays giving blood because they are out-moded, fine. But refusing to donate blood yourself seems to me like a singularly bad way of making your point. To me, it sounds as if you don’t care if deserving people (gay or straight) die for lack of blood, if the blood should happen to be obtained by a method you disapprove of for political reasons. I just can’t agree with this.

Until they are willing to take blood from my 20-year monogymous gay neighbors, who have a risk factor lower than me or anyone else on Ghod’s Green Earth, they ain’t getting one lousy drop from me.

And let’s hope that when you need a blood transfusion, you are not surrounded by people who feel, as you do, that depriving the public of life-saving assistance is the best way to make their point.

OLD SCRATCH says:

actually what it justifies is refusing to support an organization that perpetuates stereotypes against gay men even if they do perform a usefull service…and putting presure on them to change their policies.

Where we differ, of course, is on the question of whether that “useful service” is important enough to justify witholding blood from those in need – and it’s not the organizatin that needs the blood, it’s your neighbors and friends.

sure thing boss…

from SF Chronicle September 15th 2000 “Blood banks, faced with blood shortages, supported
easing the restrictions, but the plan was opposed by the
American Red Cross.”

Do you have the article or a link to it, or anything that might indicate why the Red Cross would oppose easing the restrictions? Because I am not prepared to believe it was simply out of animosity to the gay community, without more information than is provided in this quote.

This sounds like that ridiculous argument that the DOMA isn’t discriminatory against gays cause they can still marry memebers of the opposite sex.

Then I suggest you read it again.

[matt_mcl]

I have been very active in the fight against Héma-Québec’s discriminatory policies towards gay men. (Héma-Québec is the blood agency in Quebec.) I’ve participated in protests against this policy at my school. However, we have never suggested that anyone boycott the blood drive; indeed, the very reason we are engaging in the protest is that we want to increase the blood supply by being permitted to donate. I am ineligible to donate blood because I have “had sex with a man, even once, since 1977.” Asks no questions about anal sex, condom use, or anything. Just any gay sex since 1977, which includes every gay man on the planet except Stockwell Day.

You don’t get AIDS by being gay. You get AIDS by having unsafe sex, just like if you’re straight.

I go tomorrow to get the result of my annual HIV test. I expect it to come back negative. And then I’ll be able to say for certain that Héma-Québec is needlessly passing up perfectly fine blood that people are dying for want of.

And the really weird thing is, they won’t take my blood, but they will take my bone marrow. I’m a registered bone marrow donor. Weird…

[Jodi]

MATT, before anyone else returns to pummel me, let me say that I absolutely support your approach to this issue – precisely because it avoids the “let’s shoot society in our collective foot by encouraging people not to give blood” approach advocated here.

[Scylla]

Before I could indict the Red Cross, I would want a better cite than the SF Chronicle. I would also want their reasons for doing so.

How exact is the testing?

Is it accurate while the disease lies dormant?

Can we quantify the higher risk of carrying/contracting HIV among the gay population? And, does that higher risk offset the potential benefits of gay donation?

I would have to believe that nobody would want to donate if they thought they would be hurting somebody by doing so. Keeping the blood supply safe has to be the first and only consideration as far criteria for accepting donees goes.

If there are valid medical reasons why those that have engaged in male/male sex shouldn’t donate, than that’s it.

If those reasons are not, or are no longer valid than how about lobbying for updated criteria rather than indicting an organization that has done tremendous good throughout the world?

[Scylla]

Matt:

I think the way you are doing it is the right way.

BTW: Bone marrow donation is acceptable because these are newly created cells which have not been exposed to the bloodstream yet. Supposedly, even if you have Aids, your marrow is clean.

[Nymysys]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Manhattan

I daresay that if the local hospitals start running short of blood, they’ll damn skippy find an alternative source.

[Quote]
Originally posted by Jodi

Such as . . . ? Once again, with feeling – there is no alternate source. What do you propose, starving the Red Cross out of existence by witholding donations and in the meantime allowing people to die? Furthermore, a shortage in the blood supply leads to restrictions on “elective” surgical procedures, no matter how necessary they may seem to the patient; it is hardly a status to be actively sought.

But Jodi, there ARE alternative sources. Many of which have been cited here and in the original thread. I personally am not saying DON’T GIVE BLOOD! I am of the belief that the Red Cross DOES discriminate. And since many decent, disease-free people (such as myself) are discriminated AGAINST, I feel the need to donate my blood at a place where they’ll take it fercryinoutloud and not refuse it solely on the basis of my sexual past.

I totally agree. EVERYONE who is healthy should donate blood. I also KNOW that the Red Cross turns many of these people away. Bless the minds of reason and those that listen to it. Damn those that don’t. You have to buck the system to change the system, so the Red Cross can go to hell in my book.

[manhattan]

My point is that the rationale for not allowing sexually-active gay men to donate is not to discriminate against them but to protect the blood supply. Now, if you want to say that this practice does not protect the blood supply, or is outmoded and counter-productive because the pros of accepting blood and testing it outweigh the cons, fine.

The two issues you have raised here are inextricably linked to me. Every pint of blood is already tested for HIV, two kinds of Hep and all kinds of things that I don’t even want to think about.

But I am not required to see the Red Cross’s actions as unreasonably discriminating against gay men, any more than I think they unreasonably discriminate against drug-users or travellers. Again, it is the disease that is theoretically being selected out; not the behavior.

And my neighbors are assumed to have a higher risk factor simply because they are gay. Can you not see that the “sex with another man even once since 1977” policy imputes risky behavior to all gay men, and that such an assumption is in fact unreasonable?

As I have already stated, in many areas, the Red Cross is it so far as “blood collecting organizations” are concerned; there are no others.

I’ll agree that this is a trickier issue for you than for me, as I am in an urban area with alternatives. Could you at least drop the folks at Red Cross a line telling them to rethink?

I daresay that if the local hospitals start running short of blood, they’ll damn skippy find an alternative source.

Such as . . . ? Once again, with feeling – there is no alternate source. What do you propose, starving the Red Cross out of existence by witholding donations and in the meantime allowing people to die? Furthermore, a shortage in the blood supply leads to restrictions on “elective” surgical procedures, no matter how necessary they may seem to the patient; it is hardly a status to be actively sought.

I propose that hospitals would start having their own blood drives, that people would travel to blood-rich areas for their elective surgery and that the market function of restoring competition to the provision of blood would be good for everyone in the long run. (Oldscratch just had a heart attack. He’ll get better.)

Sure it does; and so long as they use that political clout to accomplish the good they do in fact accomplish, they will have my unqualified support.

They used to have my unqualified support. This is such a no-brainer to me that I can’t even imagine their thought process. Until they change, other health organizations will get my donation dollar, and my blood.

But refusing to donate blood yourself seems to me like a singularly bad way of making your point. To me, it sounds as if you don’t care if deserving people (gay or straight) die for lack of blood, if the blood should happen to be obtained by a method you disapprove of for political reasons. I just can’t agree with this.

Arrrrgh! I do not refuse to give blood. I refuse to give blood to them.

Until they are willing to take blood from my 20-year monogymous gay neighbors, who have a risk factor lower than me or anyone else on Ghod’s Green Earth, they ain’t getting one lousy drop from me.

And let’s hope that when you need a blood transfusion, you are not surrounded by people who feel, as you do, that depriving the public of life-saving assistance is the best way to make their point.

Well, on the off chance that blood is unavailable from the organizations to which I do give blood (I really gotta reinforce that), I will happily take the blood of my neighbors, which is unavailable to you. Hope your straight donor didn’t lie about that hooker!

[manhattan]

Oh, and FWIIW, there are United Blood Center locations in at least a couple of cities in your state (which I shan’t mention, because I forget if you were comfortable putting it out here in internet land). I’ll bet there are alternatives in many other cities, too.

[OpalCat]

I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll post it here too

http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Procedures_and_Therapies/Blood_Transfusions/Blood_Banks/
I have no problem with people wanting to use another blood organization… but if there isn’t another in your area, please donate anyway.

[light_strand]

I know this isn’t going to be helpful but I’m going to do it anyway.

The Red Cross was burned BIG TIME by the AIDS epidemic in the early 80s. It’s not just that they use the blood as a whole they also take various proteins out and a couple are taken by Hemophiliacs as factors 8 and 9 (this also is done through plasma donations). Hemophiliacs take these clotting factors both for acute bleeding and prophylactically. Because of the demand, this IV, life-saving treatment must be collected via hundred of donors per dose. Unfortunately some Hemophiliacs, very many of them young boys, contracted and died of AIDS (remember Ryan White?). But thanks to them, AIDS awareness in this country grew by leaps and bounds. It was no longer a disease of drug users and gay men but one of potentially everyone. Out of this grew AIDS treatments, and recombinant Factors 8 and 9. The Red Cross was blamed for much of this.

Now that I have digressed to here. You can imagine why they will not use a procedure that is not backed by the FDA.

Now if we want to bitch about the FDA… I’M THERE!!

I give blood because whether or not I agree with their policies, there is no doubt in my mind that the blood I give saves lives.

BTW my biggest gripe about the Red Cross is that the NEVER hit my vein on the first try, and I get a big-ass bruise.

[andros]

and I get a big-ass bruise.

Next time, you might suggest they try to draw from your arm instead.

[Nymysys]

**A trained, qualified professional conducts a confidential interview with each donor, taking a health history and asking direct questions about high-risk behaviors, including intravenous drug use, sex with intravenous drug users, and male-to-male sexual contact. Answering yes to one or more of these behavioral questions results in the donor’s indefinite deferral, in accordance with FDA guidelines. At this time, a donor is asked to sign a statement confirming that he or she has read and understands the information and the questions asked and that he or she has not engaged in any of the high-risk behaviors for HIV.

Donors receive a “confidential unit exclusion”" (CUE) form. High-risk donors who may not wish to reveal risk behaviors privately to the nurse may confidentially exclude their unit of blood by peeling a bar code sticker off the CUE form and placing it on their donation record. A computer reads the code as “do not transfuse,” instructing the Red Cross staff to discard the unit.

In addition to maintaining local records that identify all unsuitable donors, the Red Cross has been maintaining a national computerized database of more than 250,000 donors who are deferred from donating blood due to a history of risk-associated behavior, signs or symptoms that could be associated with various transmissible diseases, or a positive result for any of the viruses tested. Every donation received by the Red Cross is cross-checked against these Red Cross deferred donor databases to determine if the blood should be destroyed based on past test results.
Blood is tested for evidence of transmissible disease. Every unit of blood is tested for evidence of exposure to viruses that might cause diseases, including HIV, two strains of hepatitis, and a number of other diseases. If testing indicates that a unit of blood may pose a threat, it is destroyed. The donor is appropriately disqualified and the donor is entered in the deferred donor database. New tests are being evaluated continuously. In February 1992, with the FDA licensure of an HIV-1/2 combination test, the Red Cross began implementation of procedures to test more specifically for HIV-2, a strain of the AIDS virus that is still rare in this country. In March 1992, the Red Cross implemented a significantly improved test to detect hepatitis C infection. In March 1996, the Red Cross implemented the HIV antigen test on the same day that it was licensed by the FDA.
Viral inactivation procedures are used whenever possible. Pooled plasma products (which are used for persons with hemophilia or other bleeding problems) are exposed to extreme heat and other treatment methods to inactivate viruses. The Red Cross has been actively involved in utilizing the research recently done on a viral inactivation for blood components. **

From the Red Cross site. Hope this wasn’t too long of a cite. Apologies if it was.

Some good stuff there, some bad. The summation to me still is: Yeah, we’ll test your blood if you wanna lie to us. You tell us the truth, we won’t even bother.

[Rasa]

Originally posted by Jodi
Where we differ, of course, is on the question of whether that “useful service” is important enough to justify witholding blood from those in need – and it’s not the organizatin that needs the blood, it’s your neighbors and friends.

Herein lies the problem.

I am not witholding my blood. My blood is being refused by the Red Cross (and here I speak only of the Red Cross, I know nothing of other donor agencies). Were I able, I would donate. If I myself were not excluded, I would gladly give to another organization that doesn’t hold the outdated and discriminatory policies of the Red Cross. (Well, if I weighed enough I would. Can’t help that I’m fucking skinny, but that is so not my point.)

I’m not a gay man, yet I am prohibited from giving blood because I’ve had sex with men who have had sex with men. This excludes me from giving. IIRC, it excludes me for life, whereas a straight man who has had sex with prostitute is only prohibited for a period of time.

I don’t discourage people from giving blood. I discourage them from giving blood to the Red Cross. Manhattan and Opal have both pointed out some good alternatives, so I won’t bother with that. But I won’t support giving to an organization that is unwilling to change even with the advances in testing for HIV, and perpetuates stereotypes that AIDS is a gay disease. Had they NOT supported the FDA’s ruling to uphold the restrictions, I wouldn’t be so vehement. But to exclude such a large segment of the population as being “high risk”, when in fact, many practise safe sex much more fastidiously, is needless.

Or, in a nutshell: I would if I could, but I can’t, so I won’t.

[dragonlady]

People dying from not getting blood due to boycotts has been brought up several times.
What about the people who may die because of inadequate supplies CAUSED BY REFUSING HEALTHY BLOOD from healthy, gay donors? Is it such a stretch of the imagination to assume that the number of people boycotting is small compared to the number being turned away???

[Guinastasia]

I’m ascared of needles…MOmmy!!!
Hold me!

[OpalCat]

*Originally posted by dragonlady *
**People dying from not getting blood due to boycotts has been brought up several times.
What about the people who may die because of inadequate supplies CAUSED BY REFUSING HEALTHY BLOOD from healthy, gay donors? Is it such a stretch of the imagination to assume that the number of people boycotting is small compared to the number being turned away??? **

I agree that the policies should change. However, is NOT donating, and therefore making the blood pool even SMALLER really the answer? You can still write letters and lobby for change if you’re a blood donor. I promise.

[Nymysys]

Sigh. Once again, for those of you too far back in the nose-bleed seats to hear me: I PERSONALLY DONATE BLOOD! MOST PEOPLE STILL DO! JUST NOT TO THE RED CROSS!

I’m going to keep repeating this until everyone gets this assimilated.

[Scylla]

From the Red Cross FAQ on blood donation

**18. Why are gay men not permitted to donate blood? (see attached excerpt from New England Journal of
Medicine, 1996)

            This issue was discussed in the correspondence section of the April 11, 1996 issue of the New England Journal of
            Medicine, as reproduced below.

            To the Editor: The very small risk of HIV transmission through the transfusion of screened blood estimated by Lackritz et
            al, makes the policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that effectively prohibits blood donation by gay men
            indefensible. In 1983, when the cause of AIDS was not yet understood and the disease appeared to be linked to
            homosexuality, the FDA required blood banks to reject blood donations by men who answered "yes" to the
            donor-screening question, "have you ever had sex with another man, even one time, since 1977?" Incredibly, this policy
            remains in effect, unnecessarily disqualifying many potential donors of healthy blood. . . .

            The following response was provided:

            The issue of donor exclusion raised by Mr. (Name Withheld) was not evaluated in our original report. Preventing blood donation by those
            potentially exposed to infectious diseases has been one of the cornerstones of the prevention of disease transmission to blood recipients.
            Questioning potential blood donors serves to identify those who have medical risks or have engaged in activities or behavior that is
            unquestionable associated with a risk of infection with HIV or another infectious agent. These policies and others, such as the exclusion
            of healthy persons who have traveled to areas with endemic malaria and those who have had hepatitis infection, disqualify many potential
            donors of safe blood but also remove from the donor pool those at increased risk for transmitting infectious diseases by transfusion.

            In the United States, male-male sexual contact remains a leading risk for HIV infection. Despite the current questioning of donors and use
            of exclusion criteria, a study of 19 large U.S. blood centers revealed that 43 percent of all donations discarded because they were
            HIV-positive came from men who reported a history of male-male sexual contact. These data support the need to continue interviewing
            potential donors about behavior that presents a risk of HIV transmission.


            Eve M. Lackritz, M.D.
            Robert S. Janssen, M.D.
            Centers for Disease Control
            Atlanta, GA 30333 and Prevention

            Jay S. Epstein, M.D.
            Rockville, MD 20857 Food and Drug Administration 

**
Apparently the FDA has been examining this issue lately:

http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2000/RE000908.html

**Reuters NewMedia - Friday September 15, 2000

…FDA officials said they were revisiting the policy because new blood tests are more reliable and track HIV infection much quicker than previous ones. Also, gay rights groups and
others have complained that the policy differs from the treatment of other high-risk donors. Men who have had sex with a prostitute, for instance, are “deferred” from giving blood for
only one year after their last encounter.

Further, critics say asking people whether they have had multiple partners or unprotected sex is a better way to tell who is most at risk for carrying HIV and would not exclude gay men
who practice safe sex or abstinence, or others who may have experimented with gay sex years ago.

The restriction for gay men “seems very discriminatory and it seems very arbitrary,” said panel member Dr. Mark Mitchell. “I feel very strongly it needs to be changed.”

But most members said the FDA did not present enough scientific data to convince them the change would not lead to more HIV-positive units slipping through the extensive blood
testing and screening. The FDA usually follows its panels’ advice.

“It’s all an assumption. There is no evidence,” said panel chairman F. Blaine Hollinger of Baylor College of Medicine.

Safety measures have made exposure to HIV from blood donations extremely rare…

…Panel member Jeanne Linden said she “did not have the evidence” to back changing restrictions on gay donations now, but she “very much encouraged” the FDA to continue
reviewing the matter and consider changes…

**

This site claims the chances of getting HIV from a transfusion due to today’s testing are 1 in 676,000

http://healthmidwest.drkoop.com/conditions/blood_donation/library/blood_donation_transmitted.html
An interesting and factual site concerning a proposal to changes in the FDA guidelines based on evidence:

http://www.amherst.edu/~jraarons/fda.html
This site contains a legal brief from an old court case that suggests that the chances of receiving Aids from a transfusion in the early 80s were somewhere between 1 in 1,000, to 1 in 10,000, which statistic suggests that the exclusion of those practicing male homopsexual intercourse at that time certainly seemed prudent.

http://freecaselaw.com/ca/D026690.htm
From a pretty balance article from CNN:

**About 8 percent of gay men have HIV, the government estimates.

              "We cannot change our procedures in a way that would result in increased
              numbers of infectious donation in our blood supply," said Dr. Rebecca Haley, the
              Red Cross's chief medical officer.The FDA considered easing the ban partly because the nation is facing an
              increasingly tight blood supply.

              Only 8 million Americans donate blood, just 5 percent of currently eligible
              donors. Blood donations are decreasing about 1 percent a year, while demand for
              blood is increasing by 1 percent a year.Already, some cities routinely experience blood shortages during holidays and the
              summer, when regular donors go on vacation, and blood banks are bracing for
              more serious shortages if donations continue to decline.... ... Last year, however,
              blood banks began using a new genetic test that they believe can largely eliminate
              that risk. Nucleic acid testing, or NAT, can detect tiny amounts of a virus before
              the donor's body has even recognized the infection, 11 days after a person is
              infected.

              That means the test could easily catch HIV infection in a man who had sex with
              an HIV-infected man a year ago, much less five, said some blood banks that
              urged the FDA to go with a one-year policy instead.

              Last spring, a human rights commission in South Africa ruled that gay men have
              a constitutional right to donate blood. 

**

After reading on this for the last hour or so, this what I think.

The restrictions on gay donations were originally placed on the blood supply for very good reasons in 1982 or so with the cooperation of the gay community. Those reasons probably no longer apply, due to new technology that allows for very accurate testing, and these issues are being revisited. However, one needs to be sure about these things, and the recent FDA examination denied easing of the strictures based on the fact that the proper science had not been done to determine just what the increased risk to the blood supply (if any) would be. They recommended maintaining the criteria until that asessment had been done. This seems reasonable to me. I would think now that a blanket rejection of males as donees based on homosexual encounters is probably no longer needed.

A more specific screening procedure focussing on high risk behavior associated with multiple partners and unprotected sex, both anal and otherwise, with multiple partners over various time periods would probably better serve the donor and donee population better than current standards regardless of their sexual inclinations.
That being said, I find the idea of anyone arguing against blood donation in any way shape or form, with any collecting agency to be despicable and reprehensible. It can and does cost lives, and I respect the Red Crosses and the FDAs caution in protecting the entire public from potentially unsafe blood. I would rather have a few people offended, than have my daughter receive contaminated blood that had been accepted for political reasons.

I think we are on the verge of having these criteria changed for sound scientific reasons, and that is as it should be.

btw: The Red Cross is an exceptional group, and I cannot support a damaging and irresponsible boycott of their services that benefit the entire world at large due to the prudent caution they have so far exercised. Being a little slow on this issue isn’t necessarily a terrible thing. I’m in favor of advocating change, but not in a way that damages the deservedly excellent reputation of the Red Cross and its works.

[OpalCat]

*Originally posted by Nymysys *
**Sigh. Once again, for those of you too far back in the nose-bleed seats to hear me: I PERSONALLY DONATE BLOOD! MOST PEOPLE STILL DO! JUST NOT TO THE RED CROSS!

I’m going to keep repeating this until everyone gets this assimilated. **

sigh For those not paying attention, it has already been discussed that in some places, the red cross is the ONLY OPTION.

If you want to donate elsewhere, FINE. I hope you do. I’m just saying that even if it means going to the Red Cross, because there aren’t other options, please do it. It’s more important to donate.

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**

That being said, I find the idea of anyone arguing against blood donation in any way shape or form, with any collecting agency to be despicable and reprehensible. It can and does cost lives, and I respect the Red Crosses and the FDAs caution in protecting the entire public from potentially unsafe blood.

**

Could you please provide me with h=the number of people who have died becasue I have argued against giving blood to the red cross? thank you.