If you are asking me, I don’t know their policy enough to know what they would do. I would like to think that is there were ever a stituation where blood was so rare that a gay man’s blood was needed to save a life, they would draw the blood, test it and use it if it were safe.
Again, I have no idea. I don’t work for the American Red Cross. Call them and ask.
Now answer my questions.
What saddens me is that this undermines the whole basis for the “gift relationship”* which lies at the core of the superiority of donated over sold blood. Screening blood by testing is useful, but as has been mentioned, there is a window period before infection can be found. The advantage of donors over sellers is that donors have no incentive to lie about their activities. Unprotected anal sex, particularly male-to-male is a serious risk factor. Clearly, recent - 5 years is very conservative - activity should stop you from donating. But extending this to any contact at any time brings the legitimacy of the deferral questionaire into doubt. And if the questions are crap, people’s tendency to answer the questions truthfully - as I said the whole point of a donor system - is undermined. People who think they are ok will lie and donate.
IMHO the reason for the excessive deferral of gays is that they are worried about the public perception of risk. But this is entirely unfounded and by indulging in it, blood banks are perpetuating ignorance and bigotry as well as ironically threatening the quality of the blood supply.
*[sup]Title of book by Titmuss (1970) on the issue. As it happens this is a topic of my economics PhD.[/sup]
I would love to answer these questions, but they don’t apply to me. I do donate blood, and plan on doing so every 6 months for as long as I can.I, however, have the choice to do so. Gay men do not. Women having sex with bisexual men so not.
If there was a serious shortage, at the cost of lives, I would donate to the Red Cross even though it is against my principles. I’m not really concerned with a hurricane totalling Baltimore, but if it were so, and an emergency, then yes I would accept aid. Of course, I would also donate blood in an emergency, so it goes both ways, I think.
I have no cites about discimination in providing these services, and no interest in looking them up. However, let me give you a hypothetical situation:
A gay men is checked into the Emergency room after he is involved in a major car accident. For whatever injuries, he desperately needs blood. His lover is also there.
At the same time, a mother of 3 is sent to the Emergency room and needs blood. Her husband and three children are there. There is not enough blood for both of them.
I would hope, under these circumstances, that the severity of the injuries would decide who recieved the blood, but I don’t think it’s outlandish to assume that it would go to the mom, even if her injuries were lesser.
Ethically, I am opposed to the Red Cross’s blood screening process. I am not in any way upset by the aid they give, or the help to people in need. I would never refuse to donate, even if to the Red Cross, if it was a major emergency.
I’m not speaking for anyone else in this thread. In posting here in the first place, I was simply trying to add some actual facts to the debate. I think your question applies more to other posters, not me.
Sooo. How many of you arguing for continuing to donate to the Red Cross have written letters or called and expressed displeasure with their policies? Or are you just going to continually unconditionally suppport the organization. hmmmm?
Well, let’s see:
On the one hand, they’ve provided ambulances across battle lines to save wounded, they’ve fed the starving throughout the world, provided innoculations and medical care to millions who would otherwise not have it and die, provided food and shelter to disaster victims the world over. I doubt it would be an exagerration to say they’ve saved a millions of lives, and improved the health and welfare of millions more.
On the other hand, they may be a little slow in easing restrictions on donations of blood, that were originally set up to save and most certainly have saved many lives.
Let’s see, shall we just throw away all the good that the organization has done, and continues to do because of this possibility?
Why is this not a tough question for me?
Some things are more important than people’s feelings. The immense good that the Red Cross does is certainly one of them.
Can we at least agree that the reasons these criteria are in place is not discriminatory? That they were reasonable and called for considering how little was known about Aids through the early years when it was a predominately gay disease?
Can we give a little credit to the FDA for reexamining this issue as little as two months ago? The majority of the panel thought that the criterion should be reduced once the evidence to be sure that it was the right thing was gathered.
Does anybody else think that since this new assay which is only a couple of months old is the first that can detect HIV in its early stages just after infection, that maybe we ought to extend the benefit of the doubt?
Does anybody else think that before you remove a safeguard that has proven itself effective for sound scientific reasons, its important that you gather the necessary evidence to be absolutely sure you don’t need it?
Does anybody else think that 80 plus years of the Red Cross extending aid in dangerous circumstances to people of all creed and color and sexual orientation before it was fashionable to do so might speak very highly of this organization’s unimpeachable motives?
Does anybody actually believe that the Red Cross is actuall deliberately and maliciously violating the rights of people by screening their blood donations? At the very worst, they are being somewhat slow to ease criteria in place for the general public good, and being slow to recognize that those criteria are no longer needed.
This debate shouldn’t be about anything but science. It’s a simple concept: First do nothing that will cause harm. If you turn away 1,000 perfectly good donors to catch just one that is infected, than that is the right thing to do. You don’t change a working protocol without absolute and irrefutable proof that doing so will not let one more contaminated bag of blood into the system than is already there.
If the number of blood units infected is moved from the present one in 686,000 to three in 686,000, as the board seemed to indicate it would do (remember this happened before the new assay,) does this mean that we should do it?
Is tripling the risk of infecting somebody with aids a good thing?
How about waiting to see if this new assay is proven and then see if the FDA eases, and the Red Cross follows suit before we start throwing indictments around against the entire organization?
oldscratch: How many of you arguing for continuing to donate to the Red Cross have written letters or called and expressed displeasure with their policies? Or are you just going to continually unconditionally suppport the organization. hmmmm?
Actually, now that it’s been brought to my attention, I’ll look around for another place to donate. And if I do give in a Red Cross blood drive again, I’m going to add a note on my little checklist form for donor eligibility protesting the unreasonable strictness of the ban on gay donors, and I’m going to repeat my objections to the nurse who gives me the donation interview. That’s what I’m a-gonna do.
**
But since they are no longer neseccary they are now considered discriminatory… Many conservatives say the same about afirmative action. You should be able to grasp the concept Scylla.
**
Can you explain to me how a 5 year period equals HIV in it’s early stages? 10 years ago this would have been an acceptable comprimise.
**
This isn’t just about that. It’s also abou;t the way they screeen for blood. The methods they use for screening reinforce negative stereotypes about homosexuals.
**
[/QUOTE]
**
That’s not quite true. As the FDA panel suggested it certainly seems like we no longer need these criteria. It has not yet been proven. Between “seems” and “proven” there is a lot of room for error. Error in this costs lives. Caution hurts feelings.
**
I sure can explain it. Until very recently the best tests could only detect someone with full blown AIDS and not somebody who was just carrying the virus but still highly infective. Even now the effectiveness of these antibody tests is disputable. A clean test doesn’t mean you’re clean, it just means your body isn’t producing antibodies. The disease can still be within your blood cells dormant, yet infective if it is infused. Part of what makes AIDS such a scary disease is its ability to hide itself from the body’s defenses. for years. That’s also why this new assay is so potentially important. It looks for the virus code itself, not just antibodies.
**
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand how the question’s reinforce negative stereotypes. It’s a closed discussion between the interviewer and the donee. If the donee is uncomfortable with the questions he/she can simply remove the tag that disqualifies the blood without facing embarassment.
Even if it was reinforcing stereotypes, I’m sorry to say that protecting people from unnecessary death is just a little more important than their feelings.
One more time:
This is not a political issue, it is a medical one. Medical standards are the only standards that should be used in removing criteria that have been proven effective in saving lives. The FDA is always slow in doing this when the potential for a wrong decision is so disastrous.
Scylla you are absolutely wrong - good job spreading ignorance. First of all, the disease is AIDS, not Aids. We are not helping the nurse during sixth period, we are talking about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
ACTUALLY…
–From http://www.flairs.org/tcrs/Testing.htm
–From http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/basic/basic.htm#What is the HIV Antibody
–From http://www.avert.org/testing.htm
Jesus, Scylla, you are so full of bullshit!
Um, you mean 12 weeks? Or do you disagree with the experts?
I have been taught since fifth grade (1991-2) that it takes six months for HIV antibodies to develop, but that after six months the antibodies appear and will appear on tests.
This new info is saying that it only takes 12 weeks.
Seriously, how can you find fault with this:
If the answer is yes, you are deferred for five years. If the answer is no five years later, you can donate.
Is that such a painful fucking compromise?
Ummm. Nacho, Apparently you didn’t carefully read my links, or my posts.
There is an assay (a new test) that has just been developed in the last few months which looks for the disease itself, and is capable of detecting it in as little as 11 days after infection.
The AIDS (and I can’t believe you’re picking on me for a capitals typo,) follows an interesting pattern. Shortly after infection, the virus the virus goes on a binge and spreads throughout the body. The person infected may experience mild flu, or coldlike symptoms. At this time the body produces antibodies.
For reasons that are not understood a person may immediately delvelop full blown aids, or the virus may go pretty much dormant inside one’s cells for an indeterminate period of time, often lasting many years. At this time, the person is a carrier, and infectious. The level of antibodies may drop significantly, and in some cases may not be reliably detected by routine tests.
I’m guessing at this time it’s like an endovirus in that it’s contained and replicated within the gene code of the cells themselves, though I’m no expert, and would defer to anyone who knows better about the mechanism.
Detecting the disease at this stage has been difficult in the recent past, and as I quoted in an earlier post the cornerstone of prevention for blood contamination has always been careful screening.
I’d repost the links, but I’m kind of pissed at your accusation of ignorance. Before I replied to this thread, I spent some time checking facts. I suggest you do the same.
BTW. If you read my earlier post, with the links you’ll see that my personal opinion was that the criteria should be changed, and that shortly they would, and then I said that condemnation of the Red Cross based on their cautious approach to this (even if it is overly cautious,) is a piss poor reason to indict this excellent organization.
Unless you can back up this statement with documented proof that the American Red Cross has ever discriminated in providing their services, then this is in fact an outlandish assumption on your part. Nothing more.
I am arguing for the continuation of donating to the American Red Cross and will admit that I have not written any letters or made any phone calls. Part of this is apathy and part is that I don’t understand all reasons behind their policies. This is not to say that I won’t write letters or call in the future. No matter what their reasoning may be, I will not protest by refusing my blood to needy patients or dissuading others from donating but instead use other avenues to attempt to persuade them to change their policy.
I have answered your questions, NOW ANSWER MINE!
Uh Nacho? Did you even read Scylla’s posts or links?
Erm Diane? Nacho answered you.
Fine. To say that there is no alternative is, frankly, a crock of shit in almost all of the country. Perhaps there is no alternative that rolls a truck right up to your workplace. Perhaps you might even have to drive 50 miles.
I’m no judge, and I’m not going to tell you whether I think fifty miles is too far to go to make your feelings known to the Red Cross in a tangible way. But please stop with the fiction that there is no alternative.
True, but I was talking to oldscratch. I answered his question, now I am waiting for him to answer mine.
Manhattan - For me to donate blood to an agency other than the American Red Cross I would have to drive a few hours to an out of state location. Sure, it is possible for me to do that but I won’t. If my options are driving hundreds of miles to donate or not donating at all, I won’t donate, plain and simple.
If I don’t like their policies, I will make my feelings known by ways other than denying my blood.
Fair enough, of course. I just wanted to establish that alternatives do in fact exist, even if the transaction cost is high. I was being serious when I said that I couldn’t sit in judgment over a distance like that. For me, the closest alternative is three blocks. (As it happens, the alternative I actually use, is way the hell uptown, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Since I’m close to everything, it really is impossible for me to opine as to what others ought to do. On the one hand, to me 50 miles is an unfathomably long distance, like Philadelphia or something, and involves taking a train and getting a hotel room. On the other hand, my mental image of you guys out in the hinterland is that 50 miles is how far y’all have to drive to get gas and ciggies. 
Manhattan - Before you start drawing assumptions on the availability of alternatives to the American Red Cross, let me clarify that in a sense I do drive 50 miles to donate considering my office (during blood drives) and hospital (when I donate on my own) is almost 50 miles from home. Fifty miles is nothing.
To donate to the next available blood service would require me to drive a few hours and a few hundred miles out of State. As I said, I’m not going to do this - period.
A few years ago we had the choice between the American Red Cross and IHC. IHC was suspended from blood collections due to :::gasp::: unsafe blood screening. Local hospitals now only refer donors to the American Red Cross.
Although you are correct in stating that alternatives are available to everyone, I suspect that certain conditions such as mine, deter others from using these alternatives. Shit, Martians can even fly their spaceship to an alternative blood bank if they are ambitious enough, right?
So let me clarify. YES - there are other choices, but those choices are not practical for everyone.
I also challenge you to answer the questions I previously asked. Does your protest carry over if you or someone you love ever need the services of the American Red Cross or is it strictly contained to what you can offer them?
Sorry for the simu-post.
Living in the sticks it isn’t uncommon to walk a mile for a Camel (or blood donation), in the blinding snow storm, uphill both ways, barefoot, and without a coat. 
Unless they have a monopoly as you have described, yes, I would refuse blood or other aid from the Red Cross.
You have no idea how upset I am about this. Heck, I have no idea how upset I am – I’m mostly just dumbfounded, because I agree that on balance they are a worthy organization. They got my blood for nearly 20 years, and they got my money for almost 15. Frankly, I’d like to go back to them as a donor.
I want to take them aside and just slap them upside the head and say, “Hey! You’re good guys and all, but what the hell are you thinking calling my neighbors sluts? People are at higher risk taking a dump in a bus station than they are, and you’re going to call them high risk???”