LGBT News FDA conciders changing lifetime ban on blood donations.

It still sounds stupid. Don't they check all the blood for diseases anyways? -_-

 

Well, for those of us who are having sex as often as pigs fly through the sky, it's still annoying. I won't give blood.

Also, how are they going to find out? "Oh, we are going to follow you into a gay club and make sure nothing goes in your ass!" Legit....I think it's about as silly as all get out.

 

While the one year celibacy requirement is almost as ludicrous, it's at least a bit better than a lifetime ban. Let's hope the FDA realizes that there's a blood shortage...

 

The thing is, blood tests are not conclusive. Since gay men tend to be at higher risk, it was necessary back then. However, now that technology has progressed, the ban isn't really necessary any more. They are planning on having a 1 year deferral for MSMs, which is pretty fair.

 

It's not fair, especially when straight men who are promiscuous can donate all they want, and monogamous gay men have to stay celibate for an entire year. That's not fair at all, and to think that the FDA would turn down millions of pints of perfectly good blood because it may come from MSMs in the wake of the largest blood donation shortage in history is absolutely careless of all the patients that would benefit.

 

Totally agree. That's the thing that's so frustrating: the amount of good blood that has to be refused because healthy people are honest about the sex of their sexual partners in the last year.

 

I remember reading in a blog that George Takei posted about this on Facebook that black women in America actually are at a greater risk for HIV than gay men, yet they can give blood. (Edit I just looked and it appears they aren't a higher risk than "MSM," but significantly higher than white men/women.) Assuming that is true, I really see this as a ban that is sort of an irrelevant relic of the past which is now just discriminatory. Can you imagine if black women were not longer allowed to give blood? I can see the riots and looting now. While it may be true that gay men are a higher risk group for STDs, it appears that they are the only high risk group of people targeted so it's not necessarily based on science. Surely, it would be more effective to ask about sexual habits (ie protected or not, monogamous relationship, etc) than clump everyone together. They always complain about blood shortages and advertise how much they need you to donate blood...

 

Re: FDA considers changing lifetime ban on blood donations.

Perhaps fair was not the right term I was looking for. The ban is not put in place to be discriminatory against homosexuals. It's put in place because MSMs have a higher risk at disease. There's many reasons people would not want someone's blood. If a straight couple goes to Africa, they immediately have a deferral for a couple of years because many diseases exist in Africa. It's more important to be cautious than to potentially infect many people. I'm not saying I think it's fair that straight people can have all the sex they want without any waiting period, but I do think the waiting period would be necessary since blood tests are not conclusive. 1 year is just fine.

 

We have a one year deferral in place here. Perhaps a better rule would be to prevent people who have frequent unprotected sex with many different people from giving blood instead. HIV tests are usually conclusive at 4 months.

People can always lie anyway. I wonder how many gay men lie to give blood.

 

I actually know some that do lie to donate, and I may also just do that. I'd be fine with a 4 month deferral on all blood to make sure it's all clean.

 

That is part of the reason it was introduced yes, but it is still very discriminatory as there is no ban on those from similarly statistically "risky" groups (as others have stated, African American women, and promiscuous straight people).

Plus I think the biggest issue I have with it is its still stuck in a very 80s mindset of presuming rates in the gay club scene are applicable to all gay men. Its absolutely disgraceful that people who have sex with a couple of sexual partners in their lifetime are automatically categorized as a risk and grouped with people having a different sexual partner every week.

I think that is along the lines of how they should do it. They should work it on a case by case basis. More bureaucracy perhaps, but blood is literally liquid gold, its well worth the investment. For example why on earth should a guy who has been in a committed relationship with another guy be turned away if they were both virgins and show no symptoms of disease?

How about just having a rule stating people should wait four months before giving blood after each new sexual partner? That way the HIV tests will successfully be able to pick up on any cases.

 

Having laws based on stereotypes is ridiculous and it's really pissing me the fuck off. How's this any different than banning single men from adopting children and only allowing single women, simply based on the fact that men are stereotypically more aggressive and "too violent". Oh did that hit too close to home? Good! Both are just as ridiculous and if you can't say that, you're simply ignorant.

 

And here I thought this was going to mean that I don't have to lie or keep abstaining to donate blood. Oh well I guess it's better than a lifetime deferral. Wouldn't a better idea be to base it on people who have unprotected sex, like imnotreallysure said? Either way MSM deferrals say that the FDA is either discriminatory or admitting that HIV tests aren't as effective as the medical community makes them out to be.

 

Until they stop this bias against gay/bi men, I refuse to give blood. I haven't had sex in 12 years, but it is the principle of it. I know I have open sores(non-HIV related) and couldn't give it anyways, but it will be a big "screw you" when they do heal up. I know straight guys who have been with 40 women. C'mon now...

 

Aren't you directing that anger at the wrong people? It isn't the people making this law that needs the blood. It is the patients dieing because they can't get blood.

If you can donate, do it for them. It isn't their fault the law exists.

 

This is regressive and stupid,
Their main reasons for the rule is 'Disease Risk',
Which is fine and understandable,
But why are straight people not expected to do the same?

Numerically they have the largest numbers of STDs.

 

Re: FDA considers changing lifetime ban on blood donations.

Homosexual males have a higher risk of contracting HIV. They have a dramatically lower probability of being responsible for HIV+ blood considering they account for less than three percent of the human population. Though the meaning of these statistics is still irrelevant considering the fact that the blood is thoroughly tested and processed before it is administered.

 

Re: FDA considers changing lifetime ban on blood donations.

Exactly.

Its the issue this rule is applied so disproportionately.

Most heterosexual women are allowed to give blood, and whilst they are asked whether they have recently had sex with a man who has sex with men, lets face it, how are they going to know? Its not like most MSM (men who sleep with men) are going to willingly disclose that in this state of affairs, let alone on the first date! Even people who are openly bisexual are often hesitant to tell their partners due to perceived consequences. So there is probably a lot of "statistically risky" blood happily being taken and then shipped off for testing.

And likewise the rules are silly. As stated above women are ruled out if they know (unlikely) that their sexual partner was a MSM - but what about if their partner was 100% straight but he had a previous partner who had slept with a MSM? It only takes one! Lets say a MSM who does have HIV and sleeps with a woman transmitting it to her, who sleeps with a man transmitting it to him, who then sleeps with a woman transmitting it to her. That final woman is deemed A-OK to give blood. Very low risk apparently!

Yet a gay male virgin who sleeps with another gay male virgin? Nah, way too risky!

At the end of the day all the blood is screened anyway, and this game of statistical probabilities often does not relate to the real life risks of people being infected so why bother continuing as we are? Just redo the questioning based on a more sensible case-by-case approach, looking for possible symptoms (have you felt unwell in the last 4months?) or obvious risks (have you used needles/had unprotected sex in the last year? Has that person had previous sexual partners? Do they have any obvious symptoms?) etc.