The actual rate of HIV infection among gay men is very high -- about 44 times the rate of HIV infection among the general population of the United States -- but I think it's disingenuous to imply that gay men with HIV would donate blood at a rate 800 times the rate of the general population.
I don't think that's what I said.... I was basically quoting the FDA (
Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers ):
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.
Note that this does not say "gay men", but "men who have had sex with men since 1977". I'm not sure if that matters, I'm just trying to be precise.
Smoke said:
Also, I'm curious: In view of the fact that African-Americans are far more likely to have HIV than Caucasians, do you favor a ban on blood donation by African-Americans?
I think the relevant question, whether we are talking about MSM or African-Americans or any other group, is purely a medical/policy question. The question is this: how much would we reduce the risk of blood borne disease by such a policy, and would this outweigh the cost of reduced blood supply? I think this question should be addressed by our best experts based on the soundest scientific data. I don't think blacks, or gays, or whites, or myself or my fiancee have a right to donate blood and I think it would be a serious misunderstanding and a mistake for black advocacy groups to take this up as a civil rights issue.
Smoke said:
For the record, if won't bother me if they never lift the ban. My sense of alienation from American society is very nearly complete, and I wouldn't donate blood even if the ban were lifted, although I don't have HIV and have never had any other sexually-transmitted disease.
Smoke, you know how strongly I support equality for the LGBT community. It's terrible the way our society has alienated LGBT people. However, in this *one particular* instance, out of many dozens, I think the alienation is misplaced. This time, you're mistaken. Lots of people get screened from donating blood even though they KNOW they don't have any disease. Don't take it personally. It's just a statistical safety precaution. The policy HAPPENS to be a very convenient fact for the bigots who will try to say AIDS is a "gay curse" or something .... nevertheless, we can't let our distaste for bigots get in the way of sober, sound medical policy. IMO