Aren’t there fancy screening tests run on all donations so that even if the gay population tends to have certain transmissible medical problems those can and are always screened for anyways after the blood is donated?
When the ban was originally started, it took months for an infected person to show positive even though the blood was contaminated.
Even now, I think there’s a few days window. (Might be wrong)
Plus, the blood banks don’t want to risk even one case.
Eleven years ago, I was in a serious accident and required 75 units of blood. Almost a year later, I was notified that the one of the donors had just tested positive and I needed to be tested. It was negative but the fact is, some people will lie about risk factors.
(I don’t know if the donor was gay or a drug user)
Tests are never 100% effective. That is why many people with risk factors are eliminated by the questionnaire. Take all those with risk factors out then the entire process becomes more effective. I think this particular prohibition will go away before too long. I continue to not be able to donate because I was stationed in Germany in the 80s.
Well, the short answer is because the Red Cross has that* as a rule. in The United States. Other countries have different rules.
Beyond that, it goes into speculation. The Red Cross would say there’s still too high an HIV infection rate in that population. Maybe, or maybe it’s because there could/would be a loss of confidence in the blood supply, even though it’s born out of ignorance.
*Really, the rule is a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1977 cannot donate. So gay virgins can give blood, and heterosexual male victims of rape, or otherwise heterosexual men except for the proverbial ‘one time in college’ cannot.
Nope. It’s federal government policy.
Blood Donor Eligibility Criteria | Red Cross Blood Services
However …
The screening tests aren’t perfect. There are false negatives that will slip through. (And false positives, but those aren’t relevant here.)
Gay men are still significantly more likely to be HIV+ than other demographic groups. And they are overwhelmingly more likely to have recently acquired HIV and not know it (which are the sorts of donors that pose the most danger to the blood supply. Presumably, very few people who know they are HIV+ will try to donate).
According to this, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) account for 4% of the population, and about 71% of new infections.
So by reducing the pool of potential donors by 4%, you reduce the chance of transmission by 71%. Unless the need for blood is really dire, that’s a tradeoff we should make.
Obviously, not all MSM are the same risk. But they are a small enough portion of the population that it may not be worth it to delve deeper. Imagine you could somehow come up with the questions to ask so that you could perfectly split MSM into two pools: The risky pool, which includes almost all 71% of those new HIV infections, and the not-risky, which has a risk of HIV infection no greater than the rest of the population. By doing so, you’ve managed to increase the blood donor supply by 2%. Nice, but not exactly earth-shaking. You can probably get better results by tweaking the telephone message you use to ask people to come donate.
And there’s of course plenty Cover-Your-Ass reasoning involved. The current system isn’t perfect, and some HIV+ donors slip through. But if you change the current system and someone who would have been rejected by the old system slips through, time to start freshening up that resume.
For the same reason that previously ‘Negroes’ couldn’t donate blood --sheer prejudice.
That racist rule was also justified by flimsy medical reasons – that certain diseases were more common in Negroes*, so they had to be kept from ‘contaminating’ the blood supply. (But not entirely – many blood banks did allow them to donate; but only to the section for Negro blood. Yes, even blood banks were segregated back then.)
*These diseases were also more common in poor people of any race, but that wasn’t mentioned.
Except that the medical reasons aren’t flimsy, as described by Loach and (:3=. They’re unfair, but that’s life: Anyone who ever told you life is fair is trying to sell you something.
What’s next? No Irish Need Donate? Wait, Most people who have lived in Ireland are already ineligible. Póg mo thóin, bigots!
But it’s odd how those same medical ‘reasons’ don’t seem to apply in most of the rest of the world, or even right next door in Canada.
Maybe gay men in other parts of the world don’t have the same HIV infection rates. Maybe those other places have made the wrong decision. Maybe prohibiting gay donors was a good idea at the time, but it’s less necessary now due to technological advancements, and it’s just taking us a while to catch up. Maybe those other countries use a different weighting on the risk of running out of blood vs. the risk of accidental infection.
My Google-fu is failing me. Got a cite for this?
You know straight people who don’t use drugs can also be HIV positive…
And the fact that I lived in Germany probably wouldn’t keep me from donating in Germany.
Another factor is that there are rare strains out there that are not detectable or inconsistently detectable with commonly used tests. These are primarily found in Cameroon and nearby countries, but been found elsewhere. For the general population, these are rare enough that it’s very unlikely to ever spread far. But among high-risk populations, the risk of an outbreak of a rare strain is higher.
Some of those medical reasons do apply elsewhere.
For example, Canadian Blood Services for many years had the same policy: no blood donations from men who had engaged in sex with another man at any point since 1977. Two years ago, they relaxed it to no donations for five years following their last homosexual activity.
France still has a lifetime ban, although a court case there may end up changing the policy; the United Kingdom changed theirs to 12 months (instead of a lifetime ban) in 2011, and Germany still has an indefinite ban.
Yes. But of course practically everybody who offers to donate in Germany has livedin Germany. If they adopted the American rules they’d have no blood at all.
This isn’t rocket science, people, and it isn’t necessarily anything to do with prejudice. Of the blood offered for donation, a blood transfusion authority wants to take enough blood to meet all expected demand, plus a margin for safety, but not more. (It costs money to take, store and then dispose of blood that is not needed.) And they’d like to take the blood which has the least likelihood of being found unsuitable (or, worse, actually being unsuitable, and being administered to patients without being detected). They employ statistical methods to attempt to quantify the risk that any particular donor offers blood which is unsuitable.
In Germany, applying the “must not have lived in Germany” test would result in virtually no blood being donated, so they don’t apply it. But that’s not a problem in the US. If having lived in Germany results in an elevated risk factor, and if they can get enough blood without taking blood to which this risk factor (or similar risk factors) attaches, then the rational decision is not to take blood from people who have lived in Germany.
The same goes for men who have sex with men. If there is an increased risk factor attaching to blood from men who have sex with men, and if you can get all the blood you need or want from people presenting with lower risk factors, then the rational course is to collect your blood from those other people. This doesn’t imply any condemnation of men who have sex with men, any more than there is an implied condemnation of people who have lived in Germany.
It would be different if there was no increased risk factor attaching to men who have sex with men. But it seems to me that the onus of showing this lies on those who allege the exclusion is motivated by prejudice.
I think that’s why he said he didn’t know if the donor was (A) gay or a drug user or (B) not. I don’t think he was saying he didn’t know whether the donor was (A) gay or (B) a drug user.
Anal sex transmits HIV far more effectively than oral or vaginal. That is part of it. Of course some gay people only do oral, and heterosexuals do anal. But there is that.
Why is having been stationed in Germany considered a significantly elevated risk?
Any other blood donation bans that don’t have obvious rationales?