Gay Blood is Good Blood

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm a proud supporter of gay rights and equality. However, i.m.o. those of you who are saying the blood donor policy is unfair discrimination are mistaken. It's not unfair discrimination, it's sound policy backed up by sober and tragic facts.

Since the AIDS epidemic in which many thousands died due to infection through blood transfusion, the Red Cross and most countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Sweden, etc.) adopted the policy of deferring many potential blood donors, including men who have had sex with men (MSM) since 1977. I think I provided extensive facts and information about it in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...1-gay-rights-community-wrong-about-blood.html

Here are some scholarly articles on the issue of the MSM policy:
The risks and benefits of accepting men who have had sex with men as blood*donors - Germain - 2003 - Transfusion - Wiley Online Library
Estimating the risk of blood donation associated with HIV risk behaviours - Musto - 2008 - Transfusion Medicine - Wiley Online Library
Quantitative estimate of the risks and benefits of possible alternative blood donor deferral strategies for men who have had sex with men - Anderson - 2009 - Transfusion - Wiley Online Library
http://vavatch.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/tmp/blood.pdf
JAMA -- Abstract: Trends in Incidence and Prevalence of Major Transfusion-Transmissible Viral Infections in US Blood Donors, 1991 to 1996, July 12, 2000, Glynn et al. 284 (2): 229

Because blood testing cannot by itself screen out all infected blood, every major blood agency in the world has the policy of deferring people from donating blood if they happen to be in a group of people who are at statistically higher risk. Everyone in the high-risk groups is deferred, even if many individuals within that group have been tested or "know" they are not infected for various reasons.

The facts show that for perhaps complex reasons, the rate of blood-borne diseases in MSM is much higher than the general population. For example:

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers

MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.
...
In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive.
...
Since HIV/AIDS in MSM was first diagnosed in 1981, gay and bisexual men have been leaders in dealing with the challenges of the epidemic. Gay organizations and activists, through their work, have contributed greatly to many of the guidelines for prevention, treatment, and the care of people living with HIV/AIDS.

For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

Sex of adults and adolescents with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2007

Transmission categories of adults and adolescents
with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2007.
Male Adults and Adolescents

HIV in the United States | Factsheets | Resources by Format | CDC HIV/AIDS

Keep in mind that MSM comprise only ~5% of the population.

There is unfair discrimination against gays in many countries. But the policy of deferring MSM, since it was instituted, has always had a sound basis in terms of protecting all blood transfusion recipients, including LGBT recipients. Today, there is a debate about how the policy should be changed in various countries and circumstances, whether it now makes sense to only do a five-year deferral of MSM, etc. That's a legitimate public health debate, it's not homophobia.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And I want to emphasize to the people who didn't read this whole thread or the other thread I started about this issue: blood donors do not have rights. No one has the right to donate blood. Only the recipients of blood donations have rights.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wait... Gays can't donate blood? I really wish somebody had told Canada earlier. I gave blood with a number of my gay friends(male and female) at a school blood drive. The form only asked for family and personal medical conditions. WE GAVE GAY BLOOD TO UNSUSPECTING HOMOPHOBES? OMG!!!!

"Someone" has told Canada. Question #19 on page 3 of the Canadian Blood Services blood donation questionnaire explicitly asks:

19. Male donors: Have you had sex with a man, even one time since 1977?
​

If the answer to this question is "yes" you may not donate blood in Canada. A PDF of the questionnaire: http://www.blood.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/resources/Can-I-Donate/$file/ROD_2010-01-27.pdf
From: Canadian Blood Services - Société canadienne du sang - Donor Questionnaire

The Canadian Blood Services policy on MSM:

Regulatory standards are extremely stringent regarding defined high-risk activities for HIV and other transmissible diseases. Men, who have had sex with other men, are at an increased risk for HIV/AIDS. In Canada, approximately 75 percent of reported AIDS cases, since the beginning of the epidemic, have been traced to transmission from one male to another male during a variety of forms of sexual contact.


Studies of the presence of antibodies to the virus confirm that infection with HIV is also more frequently found among men who have had sex with other men. To protect the recipients of donated blood, a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1977 is not allowed to donate blood in Canada or the United States.


Heterosexuals at risk of transmissible diseases are also deferred from giving blood. Heterosexuals who have participated in activities that put them at an increased risk for transmissible diseases, or who have had sexual contact with an individual whose background is uncertain, are also not acceptable as blood donors.

Canadian Blood Services - Société canadienne du sang - High Risk Activities

I encourage everyone to not take it personally if they happen to be a member of a high-risk group, and simply follow the safety precautions which are intended to protect all blood recipients, including you, me, gay and straight blood recipients. My wife cannot donate blood because I am in a high-risk group, and I believe she is doing her part to help by following the safety measures, and by NOT donating her blood. Let's all do our part.

 

[Copernicus]

That is actually quite ridiculous to say. I'm sure it has been brought up many times in this thread as to the reason why homosexuals can't donate blood. They have a higher chance of having tainted blood. It is the same reason why I can't give blood, as I could have tainted blood because I had a medical problem involving blood. Many people can't give blood because their blood is considered tainted. It is a safety precaution. Those who say it is discrimination simply are ignorant and/or simply trying to find another reason to act like a martyr.

I agree with the general idea of screening blood donors on the basis of potential threat to the blood supply, but it can really get ridiculous. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer several years ago. The doctor told me that the cancer had probably been in my body for about 10 years. Many men have it but are unaware of it. Indeed, everyone has some cancer cells in their bodies. These are being handled by the immune system. I had been a regular blood donor until then. Suddenly, however, my blood was considered tainted. There is no blood test for prostate cancer, just suspicion based on PSA levels. You need a biopsy for an accurate diagnosis, and even biopsies can miss the cancer. So it is likely that a great many men with prostate cancer are blood donors for years before the cancer is discovered. Nevertheless, they have an arbitrary rule based on nothing more than irrational fear that blocks donors with diagnosed prostate cancer. Unlike AIDS, there is no evidence of prostate cancer being spread by tainted blood. In fact, the cancer needs testosterone to grow, so it tends not to spread outside of the prostate until it mutates in the later stages of the disease. That is what makes it one of the most curable forms of cancer.

 

[Midnight Pete]

All blood is good blood if if it's free of blood-borne disease. Since homosexuality doesn't reside in the blood (ie. not contagious) there's no such thing as "gay blood."

My own blood/organs may not be suitable for transfusion because of all the medications I take, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[Venatoris]

"Someone" has told Canada. Question #19 on page 3 of the Canadian Blood Services blood donation questionnaire explicitly asks:

19. Male donors: Have you had sex with a man, even one time since 1977?
​

If the answer to this question is "yes" you may not donate blood in Canada.

Thanks for the info sprinkles. I haven't donated blood in the last five years but I do know that this question was not on the forms for our school blood drive and my gay friends did donate their blood. I don't really have a problem with it because most of my friends who were sexually active were getting screened every couple months(myself included) because lets be honest, all sexually active high school students are at equal risk of contracting an STD.

 

[Wirey]

Ya, go Oilers! Even the Flames couldn't touch their record winless streak, not for lack of trying though.

It's one thing to spread deadly diseases, but that was below the belt.

 

[Venatoris]

It's one thing to spread deadly diseases, but that was below the belt.

Hey, if you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horns.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

All blood is good blood if if it's free of blood-borne disease.

True, but unfortunately it is not possible to know with 100% certainty whether every blood donor is free of blood-borne disease with current technology, and it is also not possible to ensure with 100% confidence that blood which tests positive for a disease is properly disposed of, instead of being accidentally passed on to a blood recipient. With millions of blood transfusions happening each year, there very little margin for error. Even a very tiny error rate will cause a few people to get infections each year. That is why people in high-risk groups are deferred from donating blood.

For example, by deferring high-risk groups, assuming everyone complies, we screen out more than 99% of all HIV cases (at least in the male population) before doing any blood testing at all. Even with these seemingly stringent safety measures in place, I emphasize again that there have been 9 confirmed cases of people getting HIV (not to mention other diseases) from blood transfusions in the U.S. since circa 1992.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks for the info sprinkles. I haven't donated blood in the last five years but I do know that this question was not on the forms for our school blood drive and my gay friends did donate their blood. I don't really have a problem with it because most of my friends who were sexually active were getting screened every couple months(myself included) because lets be honest, all sexually active high school students are at equal risk of contracting an STD.

I have a problem with it.

I think it's admirable that you and others want to help by donating life-giving blood to someone in need. However, it sounds like you are assuming that you are qualified to make medical decisions on behalf of the stranger who is going to receive your blood. In fact, your opinions trump the medical doctors and experts in the field and the lessons of blood donation history.

I think the people who receive blood transfusions have the right to get blood which has been thoroughly tested and which was collected according to the rigorous safety guidelines of high-risk deferral. I think they have the right to receive blood which has been deemed acceptable by medical experts, not the individuals who have no expertise or authority or rights in such matters. Don't you agree? Does that make sense?

And of course, you must know that all sexually active high school students do NOT have an equal chance of contracting every STD. More than 99% of males diagnosed with HIV in 2007 fell into one of the "high risk" groups shown in the pie chart I cited in a previous post. Presumably, like the rest of the population, sexually active high school students who are not in a high risk group have a much lower prevalence of HIV.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Venatoris--

I also don't think it's fair to blood recipients if each donor, with no medical expertise, decides which tests, and how often, are sufficient to protect blood recipients from infection, as long as "most" people are getting tested. Here is what the U.S. FDA says about HIV testing and blood donation:

It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

[emphasis added] Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers

It just doesn't make sense for every random person to decide they have been tested often enough to donate blood. I'm not saying you have HIV of course, there's a very very tiny chance you do, but if everyone ignored the blood deferral guidelines on the basis of their own personal opinions about what is safe, then that tiny chance turns into a few unlucky blood recipients getting infected. Is that fair? Did those blood recipients know that individuals, not doctors, were calling the shots about blood safety?

Again, I think it's noble and commendable that you want to donate blood and help people in need. But I think public health policies should be respected and followed for the sake of the people receiving blood. People who are in high-risk groups like you, your friends, and me and my wife, should do their part by NOT donating their blood. That's how we can contribute, and that's how we can ensure that as few people as possible get infected from blood transfusions.

(In case you are wondering, my wife and I are in a high-risk group because I have a bleeding disorder, although I am tested every year due to policy, and there is virtually zero chance we have any STD's.)

 

[Rakhel]

My husband and I have donated plasma before(don't know if the same rules apply) They ran tests on our blood and apparently liked what they saw. However, I must say that after reading the deferred group, I realize I probably shouldn't donate either until they can conduct better testing. I do not want to be held responsible for someone getting ill just so I could feel better about myself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

rakhel -- Who administered your blood donation? Did they not give you a questionnaire asking if you are MSM, do you have hemophilia, have you ever used IV drugs, have you ever slept with someone who has hemophilia, etc.?

 

[Rakhel]

It was one of those plasma donation places where they compensate you for your time. They asked me all the questions you mentioned, but I don't recall if the asked about sleeping with a man who slept with another man.

 

[Diya]

And I want to emphasize to the people who didn't read this whole thread or the other thread I started about this issue: blood donors do not have rights. No one has the right to donate blood. Only the recipients of blood donations have rights.

This.
Srsly.

As far as I know I am fine to donate but it wont be the end of the world if I cant give blood.. it could however be the end of someone elses world if they find out they have a serious illness they got from a blood tranfusion.

 

[Smoke]

I've said so before, but since one of these threads has been revived, I'd like to go on record once again as saying I'm a gay man and I'm opposed to lifting the ban. Medical considerations aside, I think that politically this is a stupid battle to fight.

 

[Rakhel]

I've said so before, but since one of these threads has been revived, I'd like to go on record once again as saying I'm a gay man and I'm opposed to lifting the ban. Medical considerations aside, I think that politically this is a stupid battle to fight.

:thud:You're gay??? and, here, all this time I thought you were just a homosexual!:faint:

 

[Smoke]

:thud:You're gay??? and, here, all this time I thought you were just a homosexual!:faint:

That wasn't really the part I was emphasizing. I think it's pretty obvious I'm gay, except to the people who assume I'm a woman because I talk about my husband.

 

[Rakhel]

That wasn't really the part I was emphasizing. I think it's pretty obvious I'm gay, except to the people who assume I'm a woman because I talk about my husband.

LOL that's kinda funny because I talk about my husband a lot too and I get confused for being a guy.

 

[gnomon]

Is this really an issue?

You take blood from an individual. Test the blood. If it's safe than it goes in a bank. If not than properly dispose of it. End of the issue.

That there are ridiculous protocols based on suppositions just shows that people are too foolish to act intelligently.

I could care less if the blood that was transfused into me when I had an emergency splenectomy bleeding out into my abdomen came from a gay man or not. As long as it was tested safe is all that matters. I was more concerned if the surgeon left an instrument inside of me.

And here's another argument. Why is the correct spelling a splenectomy when the organ is spelled spleen! So much for Harvard medicine!