Proposal to lift ban on gay blood donations

[Parajuevos]

The attached link is an article that reports that Senators John Kerry, Al Franken and several other liberal democrats think that it would be a good idea for the FDA to lift the ban on blood donations by gay men.

In my humble opinion, this is insanity and the hemophilac community apparently agrees with me.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/liberals-push-gay-blood-in-risky-policy-change

[MeatLasagna]

I didn't know there was a ban on that. Is the risk as high as me having butt sex with women?

[ET1/ss nuke]

I wonder how they know if the donor is gay? If they just ask, then are women banned from donating if they admit to engaging in anal sex? It would seem that anyone donating blood for money would just lie anyway, making the whole ban an extra layer of expensive red tape for the Red Cross and similar agencies to have to wade through.

When I was going to college, each year I would receive by mail a form from the state government asking me to verify that I was of good moral character so that I could receive a certain kind of tuition grant. I always wondered about that. If I had been of bad moral character, wouldn't I have lied and signed the form anyway? There was no attached definition of "good moral character," so how could there be anyone who didn't just sign the form and return it, regardless of their true character? Mostly I wondered how much the state was spending on mailing and processing those stupid forms. I think the paperwork associated with banning homosexuals from donating blood makes about as much sense.

[random]

I wonder how they know if the donor is gay?

They ask. But the entire process is based on honesty. I'm not allowed to give blood at all, ever, due to growing up in a country that apparently has high TB rates. Since I completely disagree with that assessment, nothing's stopping me from falsifying the questionnaire and donating anyways. There's also something about not having gotten a tattoo in the past year. Nothing's stopping people from lying about that too. Doesn't mean they should throw it out because it's a trust-system. If there's an increased risk, donors should know so they can choose not to donate. Keeps the honest, "moral" ones from doing something that could be harmful.

[CB]

The rules are in place for a simple reason ... they save lives and help insure a safe blood supply.

HIV is a vicious virus. It attacks the immune system of the human body. The immune system attempts to fight back by generating antibodies, but that takes time because of the nature of the virus itself attacking the immne system. Think of a mad bomber who attacks EOD units, a pyromaniac who firebombs fire stations. Who you gonna call?

The virus itself is a scrap of genetic material, barely fit to be called living material. It is very nearly impossible to "see" or otherwise detect the virus itself in the bloodstream. It's presence can be detected because even a tiny amount of the virus results is -- eventually -- a body load of antibodies. The test for HIV infection don't (can't) seek the virus itself, it seeks the antibodies.

An analogy: Assume a mad sniper is loose in a city. What is the chance of spotting him by overflying the city in a helicopter? Almost zero.
But as you fly over the city, you may see a police cordon, fire trucks and ambulances in a perimeter, maybe smoke and plenty of SWAT team members gathered around a few block area. The reaction is bigger and easier to spot than the infection.

But a person can be infected with the virus, and capable of transmitting the virus to another person by means of a blood transfusion, for weeks before their body reacts by producing enough antibodies to be detected by current testing.

What is the biggest single risk factor for a potential donor being infected with HIV? That he is a homosexual male who has has sexual contact, even once, with another male since 1977. Defer that donor group, and you have eliminated over 90 percent of the risk of receiving HIV tainted blood. Add, as the FDA rules do, additional bans against drug user who inject drugs, and other high risk groups, and the safety of blood is now at the highest level that it has ever been.

When the question of HIV and blood donation comes up, there are two truths:

1 - Q. What are the chances of getting HIV or any other serious infection from donating blood? A. Zero.

2 - Q. What are the chances of getting HIV or any other serious infection from receiving donated blood? A. Tiny, miniscule, infintesimal, (fill in additional adjectives), but it is not zero. We are working as hard as we can to shove as many zeros to the right of the decimal point as possible, and the standards for deferred donors helps in that goal.

Sometimes we are asked:

Q. Well, can't you come up with standards for homosexual men in committed relationships, who regularly properly use condoms, and other safe sex practices ... to bring the risk down to that of the general population of non-gay men? A. While that might be possible in theory, and assuming are questions were fully and truthfully answered, it would require a screening process that would amount to the most detailed prying imaginable into sexual behavior: (what you wore, when and how you put in on, what you did with it on, when and how you took it off, what fluids were exchanged, if any, and from where to where, and so on) in short, the most intimate detailed scrutiny into the most extremely personal behavior possible. That is not realistic.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am active in the Red Cross, a 14 gallon donor, and on two Red Cross Boards.

[gryan1966]

Random as far as tattoo's it is no longer a problem as long as its done in state inspected shop. When your doing the test to see if you have enough iron in your blood they leave you to put a bar code sticker on whether or not you want your blood for transfusion or not and its done privately so that they do not know if your gay or not.

[RetPara]

Random is on target. VA won't take my blood because I was in Germany in the 80's. The Red Cross doesn't ask about it. Testing is the only way to certain.

If you know your going in for surgery - you can make contributions in advance to be used during surgery.

[random]

Random as far as tattoo's it is no longer a problem as long as its done in state inspected shop. When your doing the test to see if you have enough iron in your blood they leave you to put a bar code sticker on whether or not you want your blood for transfusion or not and its done privately so that they do not know if your gay or not.

Interesting, didn't know that about tattoos. I haven't looked at the requirements/process in about four years, since I figured out I can't donate.

So they test your blood for iron before you donate?

[Wootnik]

Back in High School (before joining the army) I gave blood a few times, the 2nd or 3rd time they came back saying I had Hepatitis. I went, got tested, tested fine. Since I tested positive that one time I was never able to give blood again.

[GackMan]

Wait... THEY DON'T TEST THE BLOOD from straight people because it is safe or because the test doesn't work?!?! Or does the test only work on straight people's blood who are HIV positive?

[Lannister]

If we are gonna maintain a ban on donation by male "homosexuals" then we gotta somehow include "pansexuals/bisexuals" and therefore should maybe ban women from donating blood also...

Dudes "on the down low" don't tell their female partners that they are turd burglers... so if these uninformed females truthfully answer the screening questions and are allowed to donate blood the end result is the same... :eek:

Or... we can simply accept blood from all sexual orientations (hint: we already do... think bisexual or "closeted" men sleeping with straight women who in turn sleep with other men) and use our resources to strengthen the testing of ALL donated blood.

[MakoZeroSix]

I find it astounding that anybody really gives a shit about this. Do you really imagine that some homo who is just determined to take the time to go to a blood bank and let somebody stick a needle in his arm to give blood is going to actually be honest on the form about his lifestyle? Wouldn't he just say to himself "Well, since I'm gay I find this totally discriminatory, so I guess I'll just not check the yes box"?

Don't you think that maybe a few of those angry queers in the Castro perhaps deliberately go to donate blood maybe just to spite the system?

no, no...never mind. Everybody go back to thinking that people actually obey rules and fill out forms truthfully. Try to ignore the echo of my evil laughter in the halls...

[Sigaba]

FWIW, the Red Cross says it tests all the blood it receives anyways. Source is here (http://www1.givebloodgivelife.org/medical/testing/).Blood Testing

For the safety of blood recipients, each unit of donated blood goes through at least nine of the following tests to help ensure patient safety.
HIV-1, HIV-2 - Test for antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)
HBc - Test for antibody produced during and after infection with HBV (Hepatitis B)
HCV - Test for antibody to HCV (Hepatitis C)
HTLV-I and HTLV-II - Test for antibodies to HTLV-I and HTLV-II (Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus)
HBsAg (Hepatitis B Surface Antigen — Screens for HBV)
ABO/Rh - Test for blood type
PKTP (Syphilis) - Test for syphilis
Red Cell Antibody - Test to determine the presence of atypical antibodies
CMV - Test for cytomegalovirus (This is an optional test.)
NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) - NAT is a technology that can detect the genetic material of Hepatitis C virus, HIV and West Nile Virus faster and more accurately than other tests, which react to antibodies of those viruses. All of the blood collected by the American Red Cross for transfusion is now subjected to NAT for Hepatitis C, HIV and West Nile Virus.

[MeatLasagna]

What's up with all the gay threads recently on SOCNET? It's almost like they're reverse-psychologicalling us...

[CB]

<TABLE id=post1279945 class=tborder border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=alt2><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=6 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap>GackMan (http://www.socnet.com/member.php?u=5055) http://www.socnet.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1279945", true); </SCRIPT>
Authorized Personnel
</TD><TD width="100%"> </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 5,224


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / user info --></TD></TR><TR><TD id=td_post_1279945 class=alt1><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- message -->Wait... THEY DON'T TEST THE BLOOD from straight people because it is safe or because the test doesn't work?!?! Or does the test only work on straight people's blood who are HIV positive?
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

All blood is tested, but remember, the tests are for the antibodies, not the virus, so there is some lag time after infection when the test might fail to detect the antibodies.

[Parajuevos]

All blood is tested, but remember, the tests are for the antibodies, not the virus, so there is some lag time after infection when the test might fail to detect the antibodies.

If I'm not mistaken it can be anywhere from a couple of months up to a year. I know that some of my friends, who got stuck by needles while searching hypes, weren't given a clean bill of health for one year, although the odds of a positive result after six months is thought to be rare.

[Princeps Belli]

I'm sorry, but I just can't get over the fact that it's "gay blood donations." There's so much fodder for comedy in that.

[CarbineM1]

If I'm not mistaken it can be anywhere from a couple of months up to a year. I know that some of my friends, who got stuck by needles while searching hypes, weren't given a clean bill of health for one year, although the odds of a positive result after six months is thought to be rare.

I received a substantial load of blood in my eyes and on cuts on my knuckles by some dudes whom were in the very high risk category back in 91'. Till then I was unaware of the eyes being so vulnerable to picking up the infection.

It was recommended that I be tested for a year, every 90 days, I did it for two years out of the fear of being that exception to the rule and not wanting to have even the remotest chance of passing to my wife. My family doc back then also said that the first 6 months were pretty much the statistical window for antibody positives.

[yojinbukai]

Off the gay side of the topic, but related..... is there a time when they'll let you give blood again after a restriction? I've been told that due to deployments to Africa and the Middle East, Primaquine and Mefloquine and a host of immunizations, I am not allowed to donate blood. Just curious if they ever lift those bans.

[0699]

Off the gay side of the topic, but related..... is there a time when they'll let you give blood again after a restriction? I've been told that due to deployments to Africa and the Middle East, Primaquine and Mefloquine and a host of immunizations, I am not allowed to donate blood. Just curious if they ever lift those bans.

Last thing I was told is it's 3 years after taking malaria medication or being in an area with malaria...

[GackMan]

Off the gay side of the topic, but related..... is there a time when they'll let you give blood again after a restriction? I've been told that due to deployments to Africa and the Middle East, Primaquine and Mefloquine and a host of immunizations, I am not allowed to donate blood. Just curious if they ever lift those bans.

Last time I tried to give blood, they wouldn't let me due to the cumulative time I had been over seas - not specific to any region. I had been in Germany, Asia, Balkans, etc.

[BlackAdam01]

Last time I tried to give blood, they wouldn't let me due to the cumulative time I had been over seas - not specific to any region. I had been in Germany, Asia, Balkans, etc.

Ditto. My Corpsman told me deloyment to SE Asia and Africa were a automatic no go on the questionaire we would have had to take so don't waste the time to even go. On the up side our whole DET was out of the donation process and could keep working toward our training...down side was less blood to go to the cause.

[GackMan]

All blood is tested, but remember, the tests are for the antibodies, not the virus, so there is some lag time after infection when the test might fail to detect the antibodies.

I know, it just seems like a law that doesn't really do anything.

They test all blood, straight people from high risk groups can donate, homosexuals can lie and donate as well... even if they are in low-risk non IV drug using monogomous relationships.

Does this law really stop anything?

Does it improve anyone's safety? I don't think so.

If it is opposed, it will just become a cause célèbre for its proponents. It isn't something I'd spend a whole lot of political capital fighting.

[Parajuevos]

I received a substantial load of blood in my eyes and on cuts on my knuckles by some dudes whom were in the very high risk category back in 91'. Till then I was unaware of the eyes being so vulnerable to picking up the infection.

It was recommended that I be tested for a year, every 90 days, I did it for two years out of the fear of being that exception to the rule and not wanting to have even the remotest chance of passing to my wife. My family doc back then also said that the first 6 months were pretty much the statistical window for antibody positives.

I can relate to your anxiety re: the type of exposure that you describe. It can be very unnerving, especially the blood in the eyes.

I knew a couple of cops that went after a child molester, who also happened to be HIV positive. He fought like a maniac, disarmed one cop and was trying to shoot him, when the other partner shot him. Although mortally wounded, the suspect continued to fight, completely saturating the two officers, with his infected blood. Fortunately, they didn't get infected but the emotional toll that it took on them, while they waited to find out, must have been horrendous.

The disease is hard to get unless there is direct bloodstream to bloodsteam contact because the virus is fragile and dies quickly when exposed to the environment.

[Just Another Guy]

I had malaria exposure and took the prophylaxsis in the early '80s for a Bright Star. Since then, I have been told it was three years and some said lifetime for blood donation. On one of these forums, I was told that different agencies will vary on their policies.

[Parajuevos]

I had malaria exposure and took the prophylaxsis in the early '80s for a Bright Star. Since then, I have been told it was three years and some said lifetime for blood donation. On one of these forums, I was told that different agencies will vary on their policies.

I had malaria and was told that I could never give blood. Many years later, I was told that the rule had been changed.

[CarbineM1]

I had malaria and was told that I could never give blood. Many years later, I was told that the rule had been changed.

Like wise, I think the three year from last episode rule applies now IIRC.

[WS-G]

Last thing I was told is it's 3 years after taking malaria medication or being in an area with malaria...
Antimalarial prophylaxis and presence in a leishmaniasis-endemic region within the preceding three years were why I was cut off from donating platelets back in the early 1990s. Ever since the BSE thing came up (spent time in the UK in the 1980s), I'm not allowed to donate again — ever — unless there's a policy change.

And I'm a monogamous heterosexual who's never received a transfusion and never been tattooed in his life.

[MakoZeroSix]

What's up with all the gay threads recently on SOCNET? It's almost like they're reverse-psychologicalling us...

I don't think its reverse psychology. I think it's just an astonishing amount of people on here who are inordinately concerned with what gays do or don't do. Whether or not these people are oppressed or get their rights or whatever shouldn't really be much of a concern one way or another to us. Yet strangely it is obsessed over...hmmmm..

[morelocks]

My father passed in '04. He was a Marine Sgt. who served two tours with a CAP unit in Vietnam. Upon his return to the US he joined the State Police. He was paralyzed in the line of duty in a helicopter crash. He then went to college and law school, after finishing a GED since he quit HS to join. He became a DA. He had literally served his entire adult life.

Then he found out he got Hepatitis from blood transfusions during the surgeries after his crash. It eventually claimed his kidneys. No idea what the testing procedures were back then. The PC crowd needs to stay the fuck out of decisions that will cost people their life.

[KidA]

The PC crowd needs to stay the fuck out of decisions that will cost people their life.

Sorry for your loss, but straight men and women don't carry Hepatitis? Straight men and women don't carry HIV?

The possibility that an HIV+ person, gay, straight, male or female, willingly donating blood is very very very slim. Granted gay men are more prone to carrying HIV in the past, but that's rapidly changing. Banning "gays" does nothing really to improve the blood pool. In fact it simply decreases the amount of available blood.

The stuff is tested now. Let people donate, test it, and throw out the bad.

http://www.avert.org/women-hiv-aids.htm

I'd say it's the fear mongering crowd who are keeping blood out of the supply...

[morelocks]

If there is science and statistics behind a decision then that needs to be the basis of the decision. Not the possibility of someone's feelings getting hurt.

When the data supports the decision to remove the restriction then do it.

Sorry for your loss, but straight men and women don't carry Hepatitis? Straight men and women don't carry HIV?

The possibility that an HIV+ person, gay, straight, male or female, willingly donating blood is very very very slim. Granted gay men are more prone to carrying HIV in the past, but that's rapidly changing. Banning "gays" does nothing really to improve the blood pool. In fact it simply decreases the amount of available blood.

The stuff is tested now. Let people donate, test it, and throw out the bad.

http://www.avert.org/women-hiv-aids.htm

I'd say it's the fear mongering crowd who are keeping blood out of the supply...

[Parajuevos]

If there is science and statistics behind a decision then that needs to be the basis of the decision. Not the possibility of someone's feelings getting hurt.

When the data supports the decision to remove the restriction then do it.

This is the bottom line.