Whoa, I didn’t know this! I haven’t given blood in a bunch of years, but this now rules me out anyway, I lived in London for 5 months in 1990. I didn’t get further than the initial antigen pre-screening when I was considering donating a kidney to my step-dad, I wonder how far we would have gotten before this came up. Looks like it could have gone forward with his informed consent, but still. Whoops.
Not just Germany: nearly all of Western Europe, though the time period for exclusion varies. It’s because we might have Mad Cow Disease (technically, because we might have Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) - having grown up in the UK, I am also permanently barred from donating.
That’s a good point about “informed consent”. Isn’t that they key to CMA now in medicine? Why can’t we allow patients in need of blood to give informed consent to receiving gay blood in the same way that we allow patients to give or withhold informed consent for dangerous surgery and drugs that have uncommon but serious side effects?
“Sir, we have some blood available, but it is from a 40 year old gay man who has had a monogamous relationship with his boyfriend for the past 20 years and who has tested clean every year since he was first tested in 1995. Are you ok with receiving his blood? He even sent in a certified copy of the ten-year Gold Star Letter of Commendation in Devoted Partnership that he received from the Best Practices in Safer Sex Alliance. You have the right to say no, but we would need to delay your surgery so that we can find some straight blood. Do you have the phone number for the Duggars, by any chance?”
AIUI, that’s not how blood donation works. They don’t keep whole blood; they separate platelets, plasma and so on.
New slogan for Montana : “Montana: At least our cows are sane!”
Further, being penetrated (in any orifice) is higher risk than penetrating. Now, that might seem to put straight females at higher risk… but they’re mostly being penetrated by straight males, who have a low incidence of infection, because they’re mostly not penetrated. Gay men, however, can and often do both penetrate and be penetrated, and so the same people who have a higher chance of getting infections also have a higher chance of passing them on.
You wouldn’t be able to tell from the way he wrote the sentence, it is quite ambiguous on this point. So consider USCDiver’s comment to be educational to anyone who was confused.
As for the main topic, I’m a gay man and I don’t think it’s prejudice at all. There were plenty of openly gay men donating blood before HIV came along, and no-one objected. That HIV affects gay males more than most other identifiable groups is unfortunate, but it is a fact. The rules could probably be relaxed quite a bit, but the basic ban makes absolute sense to me (for reasons quoted above), and it doesn’t feel like it’s personal in any way.
In Israel, 10-15 years ago (I don’t know the current policy), there was a situation where Ethiopian Jewish donors tested positive for AIDS so frequently that they banned them from being blood donors. I’d include a link for Haaretz, but there’s a pay wall.
Here’s something a bit off-topic but possibly a related idea:
At the HMO facility where I get all my medical care, every time I set my foot in any door there, they ask me if I have traveled outside the United States in the last three weeks. They are screening for potential Ebola cases, of course. (I wonder what their protocol is if anybody says “Yes”.)
But lately, if you’ve followed the news, you’ll have noticed that some of those people who had Ebola and recovered, back when that was the big scare in the United States, are having relapses. Really Nasty relapses.
Are past Ebola patients banned from giving blood? If so, for how long? Could some of these relapsing victims have donated blood sometime between their recovery and now? If so, is there going to be a big scare about that, about Ebola-contaminated blood in the blood banks? Will they now be banned from donating blood for life (if they haven’t been all along)?
Will past Ebola victims now be banned from doctors’ waiting rooms for life? Will they now have to be held in isolation tents in hospitals’ back parking lots for the rest of their lives? Will they be confined to Ebola sanitariums, like tuberculosis victims back in the day? Because it’s starting to look like Ebola may be forever, even if you think you’re long-since totally cured; it may linger like chickenpox virus, possibly to spring up again at any time.
Actually, one of the treatments for Ebola is infusion of blood donated from an Ebola survivor. However there may be even more effective ways to give the antibodies without exposing the patient to all the other potential risks of whole blood transfusions.
Regular donor here, platelets now, with 100+ donations and counting. My last donation was 5 weeks ago and my next donation is tomorrow. I am male.
Every time I donate I have to answer a questionnaire with IIRC some 30-50 screening questions. The same questions, each and every time. As I recall they ask about any recent tattoos, piercings, surgeries, blood transfusions, countries visited in the last 3 years, certain sexual practices, if I was military from 1980-1996 and if so then where was I stationed, drug use, accidental needle sticks, ever lived in western Europe, cancer, CJD, any aspirin in the past 48hrs, am I feeling well and healthy today, and others. These are some of what I can remember.
I know for certain they do not ask about Ebola. They do not ask if I am gay, but they do ask if I have ever had sex, even once, with another man since 1977 - I believe that’s the year.
There are many factors that lead to increased scrutiny for blood product donations. Not just being a gay man. While there may be some prejudicial biases in the screening questions I’m pretty sure they consider a statistical correlation to increased occurrences of tainted blood.
I get tattoo work done on a regular basis, using sterile, single-use needles. They don’t want my blood.
We had the same rule over here, but it got revoked in the name of non discrimination. Which I think is a bad idea. Donating blood isn’t a right or a privilege, it’s something nice you can do. Blood donations isn’t about making the donor feeling good (even though it does), it’s about saving the life of the receiver. How the donor feels when allowed/denied giving blood is completely irrelevant IMO, and the removal of this ban has een done for the sake of the donors, which seems plainly absurd to me.
The ban was instated for perfectly sound reasons, backed by statistics. By banning all active gays from donating, you get overall a significant reduction of the risk of transfusing infected blood, even if it so happens that you also refuse blood from some guy who had gay oral sex once 15 years ago before becoming a monk. I assume that you could achieve a somehow similar result by allowing gays but being a lot more intrusive in your questions (how often do you cheat on your girlfriend? Are you having anal sex with your husband more than once every six months? How many partners did you have between 1995 and 2006?) but as a poster already pointed out, it would waste time and ressources for only a marginal improvement. Plus, the more intrusive questions you ask, the more likely people are to lie (and I’m sure that plenty of men who had gay sex already lie about it because they want to give blood).
Also, if I’m not mistaken, blood is tested in batches (or at least used to) and one infected person, even if detected, means (meant?) that the blood of X other donors has to be thrown away.
Blood donation isn’t about the donors, it’s about the people who needs the blood. It’s not a gay rights issue, it’s a health safety issue. And health safety regulations tends to be very very strict for mostly everything, even when the potential risk is low, and everybody tends to be very happy that they are. As mentioned many times, the US also bar people who resided in Europe at a certain time from donating blood even though the risk involved is way, way lower. Offended gays who think they should have a god given right to give blood should get over it. Once again, it’s not about them, and I’m quite sure they can find plenty of other altruistic activities where they won’t be asked about their sexual preferences.
Stop viewing statistically sound decisions made for the protection of people you’re pretending to want to help as a random prejudice against you personnally. You’ll feel better if you’re allowed to donate blood, but this rule change will result in some people getting AIDS or hepatitis who otherwise wouldn’t (even if it’s not from your blood specifically), which, unless we’re in desperate need of blood, isn’t a desirable trade off.
Canada doesn’t allow gay men to donate blood for transfusions either. Do you have a cite that supports any of your points? The medical risks are real. Perhaps you could respond with more than scare quotes.
To respond to the general point: The fact that different countries might have different standards for donations doesn’t mean the rationale behind those differences is invalid. Epidemiological trends and risk factors aren’t the same in every country.
There are questions on the blood donation form asking if you’ve ever lived in Africa, or if you’ve ever had sex with someone from Africa. I’ve always assumed it was because AIDS is so much more prevalent in Africa, the Red Cross decided the safe thing was to just write off the entire continent.
Yeah, last time I gave blood in Canada, the list of prohibited donors was pretty expansive. Men who have sex with men, people who had tattoos in the last year, people who lived in (or was it visited?) Sub-Saharan Africa since 1980 something, people who lived in Western Europe after the Mad Cow disease breakout, on top of the obvious like people who traded money or drugs for sex and IV drugs users.
Don’t forget being incarcerated for more than 72 hours in the past year! Because hawt prison secks.
Not all of those are automatic rejections, though. I got a piercing and was still able to donate - they just asked if it was done by a professional. I once told them I’d taken aspirin a couple of days ago and they just noted it, but still took my blood.
That’s because PA doesn’t regulate tattoo parlors:
I can’t donate in the US because I’m British - y’all got BSE on your brains - and I can’t donate in Britain because I had a tropical disease in Ghana in the 1970s.
Might also be malaria.
I had to leave once without donating because I had recently been in the far extreme corner of an area that had malaria in the other far corner, and so was on the ‘Nope, not until you’ve been back for a year’ list. I was pretty sure there wasn’t much malaria at the altitude I was at, but I followed the rules.