The gay rights community is wrong about blood donations (again)

[DallasApple]

Guess what - I used to donate blood regularly. Now I am banned for life from donating blood, which greatly dissappoints me because I derived a great sense of personal worth by my regular blood and plasma donations.

I lived in Europe in the 1990s, during the mad cow disease epidemic in England. Because of the possibility of exposure to that disease, I can never give blood again. This - even though I certainly do not have mad cow disease, and will nearly certainly never be stricken with it.

My husband worked in Africa for ten years. He never had sex with any Africans and never has used intravenous drugs. However, because he lived there, he is now also permanently banned from donating blood.

We're both very dissappointed by this. But - are we being discriminated against because of our life choices? Or is the medical community simply safeguarding the blood supply?

I go with answer B on this one.

I agree...

If there are enough people giving in the lowest risk catergories..

Are you mad as a cow now! LOL!!!

I would take your blood Kathryn..But not over a virgin that never ate a mad cow!:flirt:

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wouldn't it be easier to test the blood for diseases and wait before distributing it?

As the FDA explains: Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers

Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
...
Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called "window period". The "window period" is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
...
Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
...
Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
...
Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

The Canadian Blood Services agree with this assessment: Canadian Blood Services - Société canadienne du sang - High Risk Activities

Sweden has had the same policy for decades, but along with some other EU countries has recently determined that it is best to screen MSM for one year instead of for life: AFP: Sweden to end ban on gay blood donors

Did Sweden make the right decision? That depends on Sweden's particular blood supply and situation, and has nothing to do with the rights of blood donors, which do not exist.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

SOURCE

Heterosexual transmission. Young women, especially those of minority races or ethnicities, are increasingly at risk for HIV infection through heterosexual contact. According to data from a CDC study of HIV prevalence among disadvantaged youth during the early to mid-1990s, the rate of HIV prevalence among young women aged 16–21 was 50% higher than the rate among young men in that age group [5]. African American women in this study were 7 times as likely as white women and 8 times as likely as Hispanic women to be HIV-positive. Young women are at risk for sexually transmitted HIV for several reasons, including biologic vulnerability, lack of recognition of their partners’ risk factors, inequality in relationships, and having sex with older men who are more likely to be infected with HIV.

If the rate of contracting HIV/AIDS is 50% higher in young females than it is in males of the same age group, how is it that MSM is seen as such a high risk group? A female is not going to contract HIV or AIDS directly because a male has had sex with another male. She may catch it from one of the males involved, but they would have to actually be infected first and statistics say she is more likely to already be infected than they would have been.

 

[DallasApple]

As the FDA explains: Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers


The Canadian Blood Services agree with this assessment: Canadian Blood Services - Société canadienne du sang - High Risk Activities

Sweden has had the same policy for decades, but along with some other EU countries has recently determined that it is best to screen MSM for one year instead of for life: AFP: Sweden to end ban on gay blood donors

Did Sweden make the right decision? That depends on Sweden's particular blood supply and situation, and has nothing to do with the rights of blood donors, which do not exist.

Yeah I agree..I have never heard of the "rights to donate blood".

Donate means you dont get "paid"..

Its really kind of ridiculous.

Love

Dallas

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Donate means you dont get "paid".

Facilities that do pay (usually for plasma instead of whole blood) do so on the idea that they are paying for your time rather than paying for the blood. It can still be considered a donation that way. Keep in mind that plasma donations carry the same restrictions as whole blood as far as countries visited and sexual activities.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It makes sense to exclude groups of people who are statistically more likely to have HIV if the blood supply can't be reliably tested. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the way the argument is presented, though: the implication that thousands of hemophiliacs died because of the reckless selfishness of gay activists and thousands more are doomed to die if gay activists selfishly insist that the ban be lifted.

That actually wasn't my intended argument but I can see how it sounded that way. I am not saying this tragedy was caused by gay rights groups. What I am saying is that it was a mistake for gay rights groups to take this up as a sort of civil rights issue, and it's a mistake this time, too, IMO.

There were gay activists who argued against the ban, feeling that it would further stigmatize gay men. However, it's ridiculous to claim that the ban was delayed because of the clout of gay groups.

Okay let me clarify what I'm saying. I didn't say it was due to the clout of gay rights activists. You're absolutely right that there were economic factors as well. My point is only that the gay rights activists who took up this issue were not helping. At a time when gay rights activists were right about all of the discrimination gays faced in this country, they were wrong on this *one* issue. I wasn't trying to pin blame on "gay activists" per se but they contributed, despite the righteousness of their cause and the goodness of their intentions, to this mistaken "civil rights" mindset on blood donations. This is the idea that everyone is equal, we all have the right to donate, etc.

This flawed mindset continued until 1986, when the blood supply was supposedly safe, because of all the new testing, when people were again calling for ending the ban on MSM and IV drug users because it was discrimination. Around that time we were hit with the mysterious "non-A non-B" epidemic of hepatitis which came to be called Hepatitis C. During this time, parents of hemophiliacs wanted to do "directed donations", which means family members who are tested for diseases donate directly to the hemophiliac child, so they don't risk disease from the general blood supply. There was a fierce fight between parents and blood banks. I'm not saying all the doctors and blood banks truly cared about civil rights and equality. However, they certainly did try to use this as an excuse to stop directed donations. They argued that directed donations were not fair to patients who lacked the family support to receive them (if you can believe that). They tried to refuse to allow my father to directly donate his own blood to me when I was 6 months old. We had a backup supply of plasma from the general pool in our refrigerator. During the Hep C recall, it was tested and confirmed to be infected with Hep C. The only reason I don't have Hep C like all the others from that time is because I never received blood transfusions from the general supply, because my parents went to the media, got lawyers, etc. and continued directed donations.

So again this isn't about who is responsible for what happened, all I am saying is that this "civil rights" sort of mindset about blood donations is a mistake. It's not the right approach.

Safer products have been available for hemophiliacs for many years, and whatever health issues might be raised by allowing higher-risk groups to donate blood don't really pertain to hemophilia so much as to whole-blood transfusions.

Yes that's true. The bleeding disorders community won't be affected by changes in blood policy anymore, however they do bring a worthwhile perspective to this issue.

It's true that it was and still is easier and more acceptable politically to marginalize gay men than most other groups. It is true that a similar ban African-American blood donors would never happen because it would not be politically expedient. However, it is also true that gay men are statistically much more likely than African-Americans to have HIV.

Exactly, and banning blacks would decrease the blood supply more than banning MSM.

This is just not a battle worth fighting. We're marginalized and stigmatized in our society in a thousand ways, and the blood donor ban is probably the very least objectionable of them. Lifting the ban will not improve the position of gay men in America. If anything, it will cause us more trouble because of the inevitable alarmist backlash.

I agree.

My advice is to keep your blood in your own body and spend your energy fighting for equality on fronts that really matter. If Congressmen and Senators are interested furthering gay equality, they should concentrate on repealing DOMA, repealing DADT, passing ENDA, and passing UAFA. That they waste their time by yammering about ******** like the blood ban instead is ridiculous and insulting. What we need is real progress, not this kind of token pat on the head. Refuse to be distracted.

I might add: refuse to be distracted, perhaps, by blood banks who are only using this issue as cover for their economic motives.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

SOURCE
If the rate of contracting HIV/AIDS is 50% higher in young females than it is in males of the same age group, how is it that MSM is seen as such a high risk group?

Because the prevalence of HIV in MSM is not 50%, but 6,000% higher than the general population.

 

[DallasApple]

SOURCE



If the rate of contracting HIV/AIDS is 50% higher in young females than it is in males of the same age group, how is it that MSM is seen as such a high risk group? A female is not going to contract HIV or AIDS directly because a male has had sex with another male. She may catch it from one of the males involved, but they would have to actually be infected first and statistics say she is more likely to already be infected than they would have been.

She may catch it from "one of the males involved" .

And how would she most likey "already be " infected?

Here is the answer..One male ..infected with HIV/aids..screws 30 girls..She the one that contracts HIV screws once..(all 30 of them)..So one male infects 30 girls..

Love

Dallas

 

[enchanted_one1975]

She may catch it from "one of the males involved" .

And how would she most likey "already be " infected?

Here is the answer..One male ..infected with HIV/aids..screws 30 girls..She the one that contracts HIV screws once..(all 30 of them)..So one male infects 30 girls..

Love

Dallas

HIV/AIDS is not "created" by men having sex with men. It is just one way that the virus can be transmitted. What if the woman had gotten it from her intravenous drug use and then she infected 30 heterosexual men with it?

 

[DallasApple]

HIV/AIDS is not "created" by men having sex with men. It is just one way that the virus can be transmitted. What if the woman had gotten it from her intravenous drug use and then she infected 30 heterosexual men with it?

There is a HIGHER risk with male on male sex due to the blood involved.

Intravenious drug use is another high risk factor...But just "sex" you are at WAY higher risk ..if its male on male sex..

And if that isnt true prove its not..

HIV was not "created" by MALE on MALE sex(it came from green monkeys)..its more "easily transmitted" that route..FACT..

Love

Dallas

 

[Gunfingers]

HIV/AIDS is not "created" by men having sex with men. It is just one way that the virus can be transmitted. What if the woman had gotten it from her intravenous drug use and then she infected 30 heterosexual men with it?

Look, no one is saying that only gay men have HIV/AIDS. No one is saying the AIDS is the scourge of God to kill gays, no one is saying that gay blood is more likely to transmit HIV than that of an infected straight person. None of that. No one is trying to say...i dunno, whatever horrible thing you seem to think we're saying.

We are identifying the fact that AIDS is much MUCH more common among homosexual men than just about any other demographic, to the extent that the FDA considers the entire demographic too risky to accept blood from.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

To me, saying that gay people should be barred from participating in a blood drive because of they might have AIDS is like saying that minorities cannot be hired for an honest job because statistically there are way more minorities in prison than there are Caucasians and that they would be more likely to steal than Caucasions. Would anyone here agree that such discrimination is justified?

 

[Revoltingest]

To me, saying that gay people should be barred from participating in a blood drive because of they might have AIDS is like saying that minorities cannot be hired for an honest job because statistically there are way more minorities in prison than there are Caucasians and that they would be more likely to steal than Caucasions. Would anyone here agree that such discrimination is justified?

There are big differences.

1) To not hire any minorities would deny them employment, & thereby cause great economic & social woe.
To not buy blood from a particular group causes no such misery...only a little whining about lack of inclusion.

2) We must hire some people who are incompetent & dishonest, since so much of the population is one or the other.
Generally, this is can be coped with cuz the downside can be limited by proper supervision. Some discrimination is
necessary, eg narcoleptics should not be driving dangerous heavy machinery. In the case of hi-risk blood donation,
there is insufficient need to take the risk.

 

[DallasApple]

To me, saying that gay people should be barred from participating in a blood drive because of they might have AIDS is like saying that minorities cannot be hired for an honest job because statistically there are way more minorities in prison than there are Caucasians and that they would be more likely to steal than Caucasions. Would anyone here agree that such discrimination is justified?

Giving blood isnt a JOB..and if it is I don't know what to tell you!!!

And besides if someone screws up my tile?...Its not like infected blood is in my child that will kill him!

We are talking about BLOOD ..not your "right" to give it but the right to recieve it .(safeley)

And besides that you already said all you do is "lie" to to give and recieve $22..

So what are you complainign about?

Love

Dallas

 

[fallingblood]

To me, saying that gay people should be barred from participating in a blood drive because of they might have AIDS is like saying that minorities cannot be hired for an honest job because statistically there are way more minorities in prison than there are Caucasians and that they would be more likely to steal than Caucasions. Would anyone here agree that such discrimination is justified?

However, gay women are able to donate blood. It is just gay men for the reasons that have already been stated. It is not discriminating against gays or homosexuals in general.

 

[Smoke]

To me, saying that gay people should be barred from participating in a blood drive because of they might have AIDS is like saying that minorities cannot be hired for an honest job because statistically there are way more minorities in prison than there are Caucasians and that they would be more likely to steal than Caucasions.

No, that's not what it's like at all.

Gay men, whether you like it or not, and whether you admit it or not, are more likely to have HIV than other members of American society. The FDA makes an attempt to screen out high-risk groups. While I don't always agree with their decisions, unanimity of opinion is not something we can reasonably expect. It's simply not necessary to take such screening as a personal insult.

As a matter of fact, given the FDA's documented collusion with blood-product companies to deceive the public about the safety of the blood supply, I think it's more reasonable to question whether the blood supply is being adequately protected than to question whether it's being over-protected.

Remember that these decisions are not made with an eye toward making the blood supply as safe as possible. They're made with an eye toward making the blood supply as safe as is deemed to be cost effective. That's how business works, and the healthcare-and-pharmaceuticals business is no less business-oriented than any other business. If automobile manufacturers determine that ten lives a year can be saved by a method that will increase manufacturing cost by a thousand dollars per vehicle, they're not going to make that modification. If it's ten thousand lives per year, they will, but even then it largely a matter of public relations. If a vehicle will kill a thousand more people per year, but can be marketed as cool, sexy, or trendy, they'll make that, too.

When it comes to healthcare, the powers that be have two major concerns: they want to make sure that business goes on more or less as usual, and they want to keep the public from being alarmed.

There is a HIGHER risk with male on male sex due to the blood involved.

Intravenious drug use is another high risk factor...But just "sex" you are at WAY higher risk ..if its male on male sex..

Well, that's an odd way of putting it. There's no good reason for blood to be involved in man-on-man sex. You make it sound like that's a normal occurrence.

By the way, I have a strong suspicion that there's much more to the etiology of HIV than sex and needles. I suspect that people who have compromised immune systems for other reasons -- recreational drug use, for instance -- are probably far more likely to contract HIV. I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of the problem in Africa is a sanitation problem. It's not politically correct to speculate along those lines because (a) nobody wants to seem to downplay the importance of practicing safer sex, which is one of the few things we know can help prevent transmission, and (b) there have been more pressing concerns than working out every detail of the etiology of HIV.

 

[Smoke]

To sum up:

If you are in favor of the ban, please remember that you have a moral responsibility to educate without further unnecessary stigmatizing of gay men. If you take it upon yourself to educate, please see that you don't take cheap and easy shortcuts that sacrifice the facts at our expense.

If you're against the ban, please remember the following:

(1) As best we can determine, and regardless of whether you personally have HIV, men who have sex with men are 44 times more likely to have HIV than the general population. Even if we assume, as I think we can, a very high rate of self-exclusion, lifting the ban is likely to have very serious ramifications for a few people. Let's say that currently six people a year are infected with HIV through whole-blood transfusions, and let's say that after the ban is lifted that number rises to 8 people a year.

Two infections a year may be acceptable in your cost-benefits analysis, but it's not in mine. Remember that donating blood is not something you need to do to live a full and equal life in our society. It's irresponsible to take any kind of risk with other people's health just so you can feel good about donating. Even if you're willing to sacrifice the health of those people, remember that every single one of those eight people, including the six who would have been infected if the ban were still in place, is going to blame gay men. Their local newspapers and local news will do stories blaming gay men, right-wing talk radio and eventually network news programs will do stories blaming gay men for every one of those infections. Gay men will become, in the public mind, the only problem with blood business.

Worst-case scenario, lifting the ban might set our movement back five or ten years and we will get absolutely nothing in return.

(2) Members of the blood business who want to lift the ban are not motivated by concerns about gay equality. They're looking at their own projected profits.

(3) Politicians pushing to lift the ban are not motivated by concerns about gay equality. If they were, they'd be working on more important issues. They want to be perceived as friends of the gay community without actually having to work for equality. They want our money and our votes, and they want them for free.

The politicians and members of the blood business pushing to lift the ban are setting us up to be the fall guys for their failures -- all their failures. They're offering us NOTHING in exchange. Don't fall for it.

 

[DallasApple]

To sum up:

If you are in favor of the ban, please remember that you have a moral responsibility to educate without further unnecessary stigmatizing of gay men. If you take it upon yourself to educate, please see that you don't take cheap and easy shortcuts that sacrifice the facts at our expense.

If you're against the ban, please remember the following:

(1) As best we can determine, and regardless of whether you personally have HIV, men who have sex with men are 44 times more likely to have HIV than the general population. Even if we assume, as I think we can, a very high rate of self-exclusion, lifting the ban is likely to have very serious ramifications for a few people. Let's say that currently six people a year are infected with HIV through whole-blood transfusions, and let's say that after the ban is lifted that number rises to 8 people a year.

Two infections a year may be acceptable in your cost-benefits analysis, but it's not in mine. Remember that donating blood is not something you need to do to live a full and equal life in our society. It's irresponsible to take any kind of risk with other people's health just so you can feel good about donating. Even if you're willing to sacrifice the health of those people, remember that every single one of those eight people, including the six who would have been infected if the ban were still in place, is going to blame gay men. Their local newspapers and local news will do stories blaming gay men, right-wing talk radio and eventually network news programs will do stories blaming gay men for every one of those infections. Gay men will become, in the public mind, the only problem with blood business.

Worst-case scenario, lifting the ban might set our movement back five or ten years and we will get absolutely nothing in return.

(2) Members of the blood business who want to lift the ban are not motivated by concerns about gay equality. They're looking at their own projected profits.

(3) Politicians pushing to lift the ban are not motivated by concerns about gay equality. If they were, they'd be working on more important issues. They want to be perceived as friends of the gay community without actually having to work for equality. They want our money and our votes, and they want them for free.

The politicians and members of the blood business pushing to lift the ban are setting us up to be the fall guys for their failures -- all their failures. They're offering us NOTHING in exchange. Don't fall for it.

I agree..and Im sorry that I had a "odd way " off putting it..Your my friend I would not and I hope I didnt hurt your feelings.

I agree though..Why would people be "pushing" for homoesexual men to be able to give "blood"?(lift the ban )

What is the motive?

I find it suspicious..

Love

Dallas

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, you know what really ticks me off?

I don't even freaking LIVE in Europe anymore, and haven't for nearly 20 years. And I STILL can't give blood.

And gays are complaining that they can't - and they're still living a gay lifestyle?

Whatever that is - hey, all I know is that you're still gay, and I'm not even in Europe anymore.

"Dang it, I'm being discriminated against because I like the autobahn, youth hostels, techno music, small cars, and David Hasselhoff!"

My point is - quit screaming DISCRIMINATION when all it really boils down to is safeguarding the blood supply. I wish I could give blood too - but I can't, and neither can you.

So be it.

 

[Mathematician]

This topic has to be approached from an economical evaluation that considers how much blood per pint each organization and hospital tests. If introducing gay men's blood into the supply chain deflates prices enough to save more lives than kill, than it should go forward. If not, then the ban should remain unless the companies bring up their testing rates.