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

[Magic Man]

Now, sadly and tragically in my opinion, the gay rights community is making the same mistake all over again. Gay rights groups and some U.S. senators (including Senator Kerry) have put pressure on the FDA to change the policy. Some gay rights activists are inappropriately politicizing a medical issue.

Here's the problem. Do they ban heterosexuals who have had a lot of sex over the past 2 months from donating? Do they ban black women from donating?

I understand the point that you want the blood you give people to be as safe as possible, but blood is never going to be 100% safe, unless we get rid of deadly STDs. The problem is in the inconsistency. As a straight, white male I could go give blood even after having unprotected sex with 16 different women in the last 2 weeks, and they're OK with that. But if I've had sex with another man even once 25 years ago, and I've been tested 10 different times since then, twice since the last time I had any sex at all, that's no good. That's the big problem with it. Instead of saying "If you're a gay man, we and you need to be extra careful considering your high risk of infection", they just say "If you're a gay man, we don't want you". And that's despite the fact that they're not the only high-risk group out there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the problem. Do they ban heterosexuals who have had a lot of sex over the past 2 months from donating? Do they ban black women from donating?
I understand the point that you want the blood you give people to be as safe as possible, but blood is never going to be 100% safe, unless we get rid of deadly STDs. The problem is in the inconsistency. As a straight, white male I could go give blood even after having unprotected sex with 16 different women in the last 2 weeks, and they're OK with that. But if I've had sex with another man even once 25 years ago, and I've been tested 10 different times since then, twice since the last time I had any sex at all, that's no good. That's the big problem with it. Instead of saying "If you're a gay man, we and you need to be extra careful considering your high risk of infection", they just say "If you're a gay man, we don't want you". And that's despite the fact that they're not the only high-risk group out there.

You make a powerful argument for being even more restrictive.
I presume (hope) that current policy is a result of intelligent compromises.
Never is there a perfect solution.

 

[Magic Man]

You make a powerful argument for being even more restrictive.

All I want is consistency. I want a gay man who has been very careful and is as sure as one can be that he doesn't have HIV or AIDS to be able to donate blood.

I presume (hope) that current policy is a result of intelligent compromises.

As Smoke has pointed out, it's mostly a result of maximum profit.

Never is there a perfect solution.

That is true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I personally don't know any gay men with HIV. Granted, there may be a higher rate of MSM with HIV, but if donors got screened like they are supposed to, there wouldn't an issue.

 

[Gunfingers]

As Smoke has pointed out, it's mostly a result of maximum profit.

The ARC is a non-profit organization.

The American Red Cross is not a government agency and all Red Cross disaster assistance is free thanks to the generosity of people like you. The value of your donation is increased by the fact that the ratio of volunteer Red Cross workers to paid staff is almost 36 to one. Contributions to the American Red Cross, a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, are deductible for computing income and estate taxes.

From here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I personally don't know any gay men with HIV. Granted, there may be a higher rate of MSM with HIV, but if donors got screened like they are supposed to, there wouldn't an issue.

The screening process is not perfect, which is the reason for the exclusion.

 

[Revoltingest]

All I want is consistency. I want a gay man who has been very careful and is as sure as one can be that he doesn't have HIV or AIDS to be able to donate blood.

Consistent policy is a good thing, but risk management is a complex issue.
I simply acknowledge the possibility that excluding gay men as they do could very well be part of the best strategy.
If it imposed some hardship on those excluded, then that would change things. But how does being excluded harm
anyone....other than their feelings about exclusion?

As Smoke has pointed out, it's mostly a result of maximum profit.

For a non-profit agency?

 

[Smoke]

The ARC is a non-profit organization.

The ARC is a non-profit organization for tax purposes. That doesn't mean it doesn't make a profit; it just means its profits don't go to pay dividends to shareholders.

About a third of the ARC's revenues come from the sale of blood and blood products.

 

[Magic Man]

Consistent policy is a good thing, but risk management is a complex issue.
I simply acknowledge the possibility that excluding gay men as they do could very well be part of the best strategy.
If it imposed some hardship on those excluded, then that would change things. But how does being excluded harm
anyone....other than their feelings about exclusion?

Who said it harms anyone? It's just stupid is all. It's not like this is up there with same-sex marriage or anything, but it is a stupid policy. The point is that if you're actually trying to make blood as safe as possible, this is not the way to go about it. If you're trying to make blood as safe as possible without putting out a lot of effort, this is the way to go.

For a non-profit agency?

For a non-profit, it's then just a question of laziness or ignorance.

 

[Gunfingers]

Who said it harms anyone? It's just stupid is all. It's not like this is up there with same-sex marriage or anything, but it is a stupid policy. The point is that if you're actually trying to make blood as safe as possible, this is not the way to go about it. If you're trying to make blood as safe as possible without putting out a lot of effort, this is the way to go.

It's good to know you're so familiar with this process. Next time i need bloodwork done i'll just PM you instead of asking my doctor.

 

[Magic Man]

It's good to know you're so familiar with this process. Next time i need bloodwork done i'll just PM you instead of asking my doctor.

What a horrible and stupid response.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I think what many are missing is the OP main's point. Is this about about rights? The OP says it is not about anyone's rights, accept those that are receiving the donated blood.

If we allow a company to be responsible with collecting and distributing blood, we must also allow them to use statistical data that protects those receiving the blood.

This should not be an issue, that is twisted, so that gay men are being attacked. It has been pointed out, they are just one of MANY that are excluded. If however, it was only gay men excluded I might raise an eyebrow.

Let's move on people...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Also, let's look at it this way. You are losing blood, and have 1 hour to live.

Before you stands 35 gay men, and 10 lesbian women, and 10 virgins of mixed both men and women.

If you had to choose on your own, and were only given statistics about blood collection for each group, would you immediately go for the gay guy's blood?

 

[Gunfingers]

What a horrible and stupid response.

Yeah, thinking professionals know what they're doing better than internet idealists is horrible and stupid. I'm gonna go rethink my life now.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, thinking professionals know what they're doing better than internet idealists is horrible and stupid. I'm gonna go rethink my life now.

Two in a row; you're on a roll.

 

[Kathryn]

I personally don't know any gay men with HIV. Granted, there may be a higher rate of MSM with HIV, but if donors got screened like they are supposed to, there wouldn't an issue.

I don't know anyone with mad cow disease either, but if you lived in Europe in the 90's, you can't give blood.

I've known several gay men and one person who had hepatitis with HIV/AIDS in my life, but never met anyone with mad cow disease.

 

[Revoltingest]

For a non-profit, it's then just a question of laziness or ignorance.

I presume that you aren't in the business of managing blood collection & distribution. If this is true, then how can you speak to their "laziness or ignorance"?
The policy would be the result of considering many factors & issues, so even if there is a better policy, we kibitzing posters wouldn't be in a position to so
cavalierly diss them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahh I was just making a funny when I dragged groundskeepers into it. The thing that bugs most of us queer folks though, is that fact that statistically we are not the most at-risk group for getting HIV/AIDS. Nowhere in the process do they ask you how many times you have had unprotected sex with someone other that your spouse since 1977. They don't ask if you have ever had a condom break during sex. They don't ask if you are someone's "blood brother" or "blood sister." They single out homosexual activity like HIV/AIDS is running wild among us. That is just not the case.

Those questions wouldn't necessarily be the best anyway as there is no way to make sure that the person is being truthful.

Not sure if they do this in the US but here's the procedure in Canada:

First, a nurse goes through a page-long checklist of questions, any one of which could exclude you from giving blood... everything from whether you've used illegal intravenous drugs to whether you've visited certain countries in the past __ years.

Afterward, though, the nurse gives you a sheet with two barcode stickers on it. One is for "yes, use my blood" and the other is for "no, do not use my blood". The nurse leaves the room, you put one or the other on the form and throw the other barcode away. Then, the nurse returns and has no idea which you've chosen. If you picked "no, do not use my blood", it simply gets thrown out at the lab.

They recognize that sometimes, people will be pressured to give blood and will answer all the questions right just so that they can be seen by others actually donating blood. This way, blood that the donor knows is potentially unsafe still doesn't get used.

 

[Magic Man]

Not sure if they do this in the US but here's the procedure in Canada:

First, a nurse goes through a page-long checklist of questions, any one of which could exclude you from giving blood... everything from whether you've used illegal intravenous drugs to whether you've visited certain countries in the past __ years.

Afterward, though, the nurse gives you a sheet with two barcode stickers on it. One is for "yes, use my blood" and the other is for "no, do not use my blood". The nurse leaves the room, you put one or the other on the form and throw the other barcode away. Then, the nurse returns and has no idea which you've chosen. If you picked "no, do not use my blood", it simply gets thrown out at the lab.

They recognize that sometimes, people will be pressured to give blood and will answer all the questions right just so that they can be seen by others actually donating blood. This way, blood that the donor knows is potentially unsafe still doesn't get used.

You crazy Canadians. Always thinking outside the box and coming up with productive solutions.

 

[McBell]

Wouldn't it be easier to test the blood for diseases and wait before distributing it? They freeze donations anyway so they have time to wait for test results to come back. I am pretty sure they do test it anyway, but why remove certain types of people if you do? I can't see them grabbing anyone's fresh donation and running right to the hospital with it. If you ask them during a case of civil emergency such as a hurricane), they will tell you that they are using previous donations at that time and the local donations will be used to restock the supply for the next disaster. So...why not test and trust the science that they love so much to make the decision instead of letting fear decide? As stated elsewhere in the forums, many of us will lie anyway and get our MSM blood into the nation's supply anyway.

Would that not be the equivelant of racial profiling?
I mean it is based upon the assumption that being gay means having HIV.

Now is that not the argument against the new Arizona law, that being Mexican means being an illegal alien?