Unknown to me, I had been permanently forbidden from donating in the late 80’s due to having a couple bisexual ex-boyfriends - I gave blood, but apparently it was thrown out after.
I didn’t know this until a couple years ago, and apparently the Red Cross has updated their requirements so that being a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man isn’t a permanent ban anymore - and it had been long enough ago that my blood is considered safe now.
I understand why they instituted the ban back then - AIDS was new and scary and killing people right and left - but I’m glad they’ve recalculated the risks given new information.
What I don’t get is why they don’t ask “Have you ever been pregnant?” before “Have you been pregnant in the past year?” and “Are you currently pregnant?” Seems like the first would leave the others not needed. Maybe they ask three ways to make sure you remember those pregnancies that might slip your mind. /aside
And yes, it is odd they don’t ask anything relating to ebola.
Does the Red Cross, or anyone else for that matter have a cite showing an increased risk of tattoo-related hepatitis in states where tattooing is not regulated?
Like what, “Do you have blood spurting out of you eyes?” There is an extensive travel questionnaire. Incubation for Ebola is up to 21 days. Do you know for a fact that they allow you to donate if you traveled recently to western Africa? I don’t think so. I know there is a time delay if you have traveled from anywhere that has malaria. Without checking I would guess that there is considerable overlap.
I’ve been in many tattoo shops in Pennsylvania, and I’ve never seen any breaks in proper technique. I’d like to see evidence that states without regulation have more problems than states with.
A multiple state Hepatitis infection by tattoo needle study is simple is it? From a quick googling I see that infection from tattoos is higher when done in non-professional settings. So I assume the Red Cross is erring on the side of caution and saying that if professional standards are not enforced they’re passing on your blood. Maybe if you go in and vouch for how great PA tattoo parlors are even without regulation they’ll change their minds.
No, it’s not simple, because those states without regulation don’t have regulation. The regulations are precisely what allows you to easily do things like study infection rates.
OK, IANAEpidemiologist. But I have many friends in the body modification field.
The thing is, tattoo artists who do not follow sterility guidelines are those who work out of their basement. Those people exist both in states with and without regulations that apply to commercial shops. Artists operating out of a commercial shop do not want to be sued. The standards in commercial shops are the same wether or not the state does inspections.
There is even an argument that can be made that in states that regulate commercial tattoo shops you will find more basement scratchers because of regulation.
The standards are the same for good business people who want to grow their clientele.
But people are unreliable. People develop drinking problems. They develop drug problems. They get greedy or tired or bored or cocky and start cutting corners. Some people get depressed and stop caring. People flame out of their jobs all the time.
I spent years eating at unregulated restaurants. I got sick all the time.
A tainted blood product doesn’t just affect one person. The products are mixed and then go to hundreds or even thousands of people. You may know a particular artist and trust them. But the thousands of people receiving that blood don’t.
The problem with that policy is you can’t expect the stigmatized group to turn around and give blood in droves when it is needed. They might not even be aware they’re suddenly eligible. And yes, if it’s an irrational ban then it is condemnation, and a big reason behind the ban wasn’t just STDs but fear of gay blood in general. Keep in mind the public was so ignorant back then they believed even mentioning homosexuality around a minor might make the kid gay, much less a blood transfusion from someone gay.
The policy is MSM even once since 1977. This predates AIDS, includes oral sex, and men who know for a fact they do not have an STD. Imagine a gay man had protected sex once in 1980 and not since then, and has been tested. I’m pretty damn sure he doesn’t have tainted blood. In fact, HIV can be detected within 10 days, which is why the odds of contamination are 1 in 2 million, not because gay men are excluded (heterosexuals get HIV too)
Except for strains that may not be reliably tested. A new strain pops up in West/Central Africa now and then, and there have been strains in the past that have not shown up on available tests. We don’t know everything about this virus, and in today’s highly-mobile world, there is a chance that we can end up surprised again.
I lived in Cameroon, and I ate my share of bush meat. I’m not sharing my blood with anyone (even if they let me). The risk is small, but I’m 100% certain the book isn’t closed on new zoonotic disease from the region.With logging, the rainforest is being opened like never before, with humans settling where they have never lived, and those humans have direct flights to France and Mecca and Addis.
The rules date to a time when there was a MINIMUM of 6 months from infection until the blood test could detect the HIV. The victim was infectious during that 6 months.
There was a DNA-based test that could detect HIV much sooner, but its cost resulted in it being used only for organ transplants (where the cost was already through the roof).
As long as gay men contract the disease at greater rates than straights, it is only sensible to do a blanket exclusion - if there was a huge blood shortage, we could maybe tweak the rules.
But the current rules produce an adequate supply, so why tweak the rules?
p.s. - I am also excluded as a blood donor. I don’t feel particularly put upon by the rules.
For what it’s worth, my college roommate had hepatitis, and they said hey, you may get it too, so we won’t take your blood; even after you move out, wait a year.
A year went by, and – I was still fine, so I went back to donating blood.
What, pointing out that people who’ve been to areas with Ebola are effectively banned from donating anyway? I thought it was a good point.
I do think a lifetime ban is illogical, but a ban of some sort does make sense and really is not rooted in prejudice - at least, it’s not now. Though part of the prejudice in the 80s was, at least for the Red Cross, based on lack of information and erring to the side of caution rather than irrationally hating gay blood.
FWIW your first point is not true IME. When the UK law changed some gay men did take the opportunity to donate blood and were very glad to do so. I’m not a gay man, but I am a gay woman, and know a lot of gay men; the change in the law was big news, spread widely among gay people, and the only ones I knew who didn’t then opt to give blood were either excluded because of them having had gay sex within the past year or were excluded for reasons not connected to their sexuality.
FWIW there were always debates about the law, among gay men; condemnation of the rule was far from universal.
Does anyone else think that asking “have you had anal sex in the past year, specifically involving penile penetration of the anus” would be a more pertinent question and only isn’t asked because it’s too personal? Oral sex is a much, much lower risk factor for AIDS (I’m sure there’s a better cite with statistics, but this will do for now, certainly lower than the risk factor for women having anal sex with men.
You could also then add in a question phrased like “have you, in the past twelve months, had any form of sexual contact with a person you know or suspect to be HIV+?”
IIRC, women who had sex with a man who has had sex with a man used to be a permanent ban fot NY Blood Centers as well. I just checked, and it’s now a 12 month ban.
I’m glad to see they’re re-evaluating their policies in a logical fashion.