Gay Blood Ban

[hh5]

 

The policy started in the 1980s when people didn't know how the deadly virus that causes AIDS spread.

At the time, there wasn't a good test to detect whether HIV was present in donated blood, and HIV was getting into the nation's blood supply. Scientists also knew that a disproportionate number of gay men were affected by the virus.

 

National gay blood drive aims to lift donation ban

 

He's asking the men to get tested, and if their HIV results are negative, to try and donate blood.

The HIV test results will be collected and sent to the FDA to provide evidence of rejected willing and healthy donors in hopes of lifting the ban.

The blood drive will run from noon ET (9 a.m. PT) through 8 p.m. ET (5 p.m. PT) in 52 cities nationwide.

Parts of UK to lift lifetime ban on gay men donating blood

The FDA has said it is willing to change its policy if new approaches can guarantee that blood recipients aren't subject to an increased risk of transmittable diseases.

 

 

 

[MikeL]

The FDA will probably look at this effort as if it were a poll...unscientific.

[Bill W]

I used to be a consistent donor, donated a few gallons in total, but then they suddenly no longer wanted my blood.  Their loss.  I wonder if anyone died because they didn't have my blood type, once I could no longer donate?

[Zombie]

Parts of UK to lift lifetime ban on gay men donating blood

 

 

The ban was lifted in 2011. The ban now applies only if donors have had sex with other men within the past year.

This seems reasonable - what do others think?

[Bill W]

The ban was lifted in 2011. The ban now applies only if donors have had sex with other men within the past year.

This seems reasonable - what do others think?

 

It definitely seems more logical than an all out ban on all gay donors. 

[Cia]

I think it's a stupid policy. The Red Cross already tests every single unit of blood donated. Yes, there might be more positive results from men who have sex with men who donated than other groups, but is the cost of that testing truly increased that much by the tainted portion they would not be able to use compared to the clean supply they could have? I think their policies are exclusionary based on past data that should be reevaluated. It will be interesting to see if that happens in the near future to prevent the blood shortages the country periodically seems to face.

 

And I've had to have two blood transfusions. I have to say, if they test it, I trust it no matter WHO it came from. As a recipient, I appreciated that someone's donation was saving me from having additional complications from the traumatic blood loss I'd suffered.

[Zombie]

I think it's a stupid policy. The Red Cross already tests every single unit of blood donated. Yes, there might be more positive results from men who have sex with men who donated than other groups, but is the cost of that testing truly increased that much by the tainted portion they would not be able to use compared to the clean supply they could have? I think their policies are exclusionary based on past data that should be reevaluated. It will be interesting to see if that happens in the near future to prevent the blood shortages the country periodically seems to face.

 

And I've had to have two blood transfusions. I have to say, if they test it, I trust it no matter WHO it came from. As a recipient, I appreciated that someone's donation was saving me from having additional complications from the traumatic blood loss I'd suffered.

 

There does need to be a delay because there is a "window" of infection when HIV is not detectable - or maybe not reliably detectable.

 

This used to be several months - hence the UK 12 months stipulation, I presume - but it seems testing procedures have advanced and according to the hivaware.org.uk "you can now get an HIV test with an accurate result from four weeks after potential infection."

 

I guess the UK blood transfusion service needs to catch up with these improvements and reduce the 12 months ban.

 

And obviously the US needs to get to first base ...

 

 

http://www.hivaware.org.uk/be-aware/common-myths.php

 

 

Edited July 15, 2013 by Zombie

[hh5]

so are you saying to give blood ... you have to had no sex for 12 mns and be tested ... is the text expense on the donor?

if so it implicitly turns off donation ... expense n no sex

 

it also be a waste if they have a political policy taking gay blood and then discard it later ... as an appeasement to the gay donors with a internal disregard

[Zombie]

so are you saying to give blood ... you have to had no sex for 12 mns

The ban now applies only if donors have had sex with other men within the past year.

 

That's what I said

 

... is the text expense on the donor?

 

No country requires donors to pay for their blood to be tested

[hh5]

to give blood one might lose ones partner over no sex

but isn't the exception if they used a condom?

[Graeme]

This used to be several months - hence the UK 12 months stipulation, I presume - but it seems testing procedures have advanced and according to the hivaware.org.uk "you can now get an HIV test with an accurate result from four weeks after potential infection."

 

From when I was a blood donor, I seem to recall being told that the majority of blood donations have a lifetime of about 28 days. That is, the blood needs to  be used within that time. If the HIV tests are only accurate after 28 days, then that means that they still can't reliably pick up new infections in that period.

 

As an aside, I'm no longer a blood donor because I'm now in the illegible list - I lived in the UK for more than six months during the Mad Cow Disease scare (I still remember the day when McDonalds didn't sell hamburgers because of that scare). The Australian Red Cross sent out a letter to all affected members and said that until the cause of vCJD was identified, they had to way up the risk of infecting a blood recipient against the loss of donors. They determined that they would lose approximately 5% of their donors due to the ban, and that was worth it to safeguard their blood supply. They also said that it had to be a blanket ban - they wouldn't make exceptions for vegetarians, for example.

 

The HIV bans in place are analogous to those for vCJD. Like the UK, they're a ban on anyone who has had male-male sex in the last 12 months, or had sex with someone who has male-male sex in the last 12 months (and before anyone asks what's the difference, consider the female partner of a bisexual male). They never gave out figures, but I suspect they're probably excluding around 5% of donors - about the same amount they're excluding due to the vCJD ban.

 

Now, I agree that the mechanics of the ban should be revisited, but unless they're willing to audit the sexual practises of their potential donors, I'm not sure how. They could ask a question about safe-sex practises, but then they'd have to define what that meant in detail, because there are always cases on the borderline. That's why blanket bans are easier to manage - much less subjective decision making to be made. As long as they don't threaten the blood supply by excluding too many donors, the Red Cross will generally use blanket bans to exclude potential high-risk donors. Their priority is the safety of the blood supply and that's something I strongly support.

[Zombie]

From when I was a blood donor, I seem to recall being told that the majority of blood donations have a lifetime of about 28 days. That is, the blood needs to  be used within that time. If the HIV tests are only accurate after 28 days, then that means that they still can't reliably pick up new infections in that period.

 

As an aside, I'm no longer a blood donor because I'm now in the illegible list - I lived in the UK for more than six months during the Mad Cow Disease scare (I still remember the day when McDonalds didn't sell hamburgers because of that scare). The Australian Red Cross sent out a letter to all affected members and said that until the cause of vCJD was identified, they had to way up the risk of infecting a blood recipient against the loss of donors. They determined that they would lose approximately 5% of their donors due to the ban, and that was worth it to safeguard their blood supply. They also said that it had to be a blanket ban - they wouldn't make exceptions for vegetarians, for example.

 

The HIV bans in place are analogous to those for vCJD. Like the UK, they're a ban on anyone who has had male-male sex in the last 12 months, or had sex with someone who has male-male sex in the last 12 months (and before anyone asks what's the difference, consider the female partner of a bisexual male). They never gave out figures, but I suspect they're probably excluding around 5% of donors - about the same amount they're excluding due to the vCJD ban.

 

Now, I agree that the mechanics of the ban should be revisited, but unless they're willing to audit the sexual practises of their potential donors, I'm not sure how ...

 

 

The clock for HIV testing starts ticking after the last date of MM sex ... tick, tock, tick, tock ... after 12 months you can then give blood. The HIV test can then be carried out immediately the blood is given - takes a matter of hours I believe - so there is no impact on the 28 days "shelf life" you mentioned which, as I understand it, is in fact 35 days for red cells and just 5 days for platelets.

 

The reason for the blanket vCJD ban is, as I understand it, because there is currently no equivalent test to identify infected blood.  So the risk remains in the UK blood bank system - although the incidence of cases has been very low - and justifies a continuing permanent ban, whereas the MM risk does not.

 

As for audit ... well, you can't. The whole system is based on trust - it trusts that those who choose to give away a part of themselves do so for purely altruistic reasons. So the focus, rightly, is on screening via questions - making sure potential donors understand when they must exclude themselves.

 

Btw - interestingly, the beef ban had no impact on McDonalds sales as people still bought chips and all the other high-salt-high-sugar-high-fat-nutritionally-valueless goodies

 

[hh5]

what else do they screen the blood for?

[Cia]

Classic BBP's in the US. (Blood born pathogens) Specifically they test for: Hep B and C, HTLV (causes cancer), T Cruzi (a nasty little parasitic infection that can lead to heart failure) West Nile, and HIV 1 and 1/2.  They also donor screen for: Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, CMV (herpes). This is all regulated by the FDA.

[Celethiel]

well I am gay and I gave blood....

although I did qualify under it since i could answer truthfully to everyone of the questions...

ie did you have sex with a guy in the last six months... etc...

Edited July 17, 2013 by Celethiel

[Thorn Wilde]

The ban was lifted in 2011. The ban now applies only if donors have had sex with other men within the past year.

This seems reasonable - what do others think?

 

I do not think this seems reasonable. That still excludes gay men in committed relationships. 

[Former Member]

I think it's discrimination, personally.  The least you can do is take the blood.  They have to test it afterward anyway.  There was a girl when I gave blood touting that she had gotten a tattoo in the last six months, but checked no anyway so she could get out of class and she still donated blood.  It would be stupid to not test the blood after they take it, so - personally - I don't think there's anything wrong with a gay man donating blood  who has had sex with another man in the past month.  Sure anal sex is more high risk, but that doesn't mean vaginal sex isn't dangerous, or heterosexual anal sex is less dangerous.  Last time I checked, there wasn't a question about anal intercourse in general on the form.  But I could be wrong.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Myiege

[Sasha Distan]

out of general interest, anyone born in Africa is also banned, such as my future mother in law. she was born there to white British parents and came back when she was 2. she has a rare blood type but can't donate. stupid

[Former Member]

That IS hella dumb.  Once again, I understand why (malaria risks and all that jazz) but banned for LIFE?  That's just terrible.

[Zombie]

I do not think this seems reasonable. That still excludes gay men in committed relationships. 

 

Problem is around practicality

- extra resources needed to establish "committed relationships" - it's a more effective use of always-limited resources to deploy these elsewhere

- is partner A going to "fess up" when partner B suggests they both donate?  I don't think so

 

I think it's discrimination, personally.  The least you can do is take the blood.  They have to test it afterward anyway.  ...  I don't think there's anything wrong with a gay man donating blood  who has had sex with another man in the past month. 

 

As I explained in the posts above

 

"There does need to be a delay because there is a "window" of infection when HIV is not detectable - or maybe not reliably detectable". 

 

"you can now get an HIV test with an accurate result from four weeks after potential infection."

 

That's just the way it is at the moment.  You're right about str8s catching AIDS from each other, but in western countries - not Africa - that risk is deemed to be much lower than amongst the gay community because of the transmission history of the virus.

 

In other words risk is determined from transmission data and all blood policies are - or should be - risk-based. 

 

If / when the risk data changes then the policies will presumably be changed too

 

 

 

 

.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Zombie

[Sympathia]

When the risk lies in the lifestyle and not in behavior the rule becomes kind of a sham though. But unfortunately, atleast in Sweden, gay men are still a disproportionally large chunck of the new HIV cases reported each year so I suppose there's some merit to it. However, lets not forgett about the profit here, lifting the ban means blood cant be exported to other countries who keep the ban in place.

 

I actually asked the local blood central if they screened for women who sleep with bisexual men or engage in anal intercourse on a regular basis...got an odd look for my effort but no real answer -.-

[Thorn Wilde]

Problem is around practicality

- extra resources needed to establish "committed relationships" - it's a more effective use of always-limited resources to deploy these elsewhere

- is partner A going to "fess up" when partner B suggests they both donate?  I don't think so

 

There's a quarantine period for straight people. This may vary from country to country, but I believe the standard is something like 6 months after getting a new sexual partner. Why should this rule not apply to gay people as well?

[Zombie]

There's a quarantine period for straight people. This may vary from country to country, but I believe the standard is something like 6 months after getting a new sexual partner. Why should this rule not apply to gay people as well?

 

Why are gay donors treated differently? As I said earlier blood policies are based on risk data around HIV infection rates. For example according to the US Centers for Disease Control website, US data shows:

 

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)^a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU."

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html