Changing Ban On Homosexual Blood Donations Not Advised

[Daedalus685]

No, I don't think so.... Anal fissures + semen. Not penis fissures + Anal blood.

Aye, as per the edit receiving is far more likely to transfer HIV.

That being said.. if we have pretty solid numbers on the issue I question even more why the screen is not specifically aimed at those who receive anal sex, or simply have intercourse with an unknown/known sick partner.

 

[halik]

The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability Friday declined to recommend a change in restrictions on blood donations by homosexual men. Homosexual groups pushed hard to reverse the ban since it makes reversing DADT make even less sense. The ban was put in place in the 80's when the hemophiliac population was devastated by AIDS contaminated blood.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blood-gays-20100612,0,5423475.story



In UK research shows a 5x increase of HIV infection from dropping their ban

"Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%.

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/


A few months ago CDC said homosexual men were 44x more likely to be diagnosed with HIV.

"CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men


"A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women."(63% of HIV diagnoses in UK)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

Policy supported by valid research... what is the flip side argument again?

 

[Daedalus685]

Policy supported by valid research... what is the flip side argument again?

Um... that no scientist would accept population risk factors above causal risk factors as a valid screening tool and that current bans are pointlessly specific to a particular group (as in they come off as intolerant).

 

[MJinZ]

Policy supported by valid research... what is the flip side argument again?

The flip side argument is that people lie.

Thus, these policies are meaningless. If a gay person wants to give blood, they will. If a straight person with HIV wants to give blood they will.

 

[Vette73]

Policy supported by valid research... what is the flip side argument again?

Because if you really remove all PC and go by just stats then we would also not allow blacks to give blood. So there is still a lot of anti-gay in the opinion to not accept blood from gays, not just stats.

 

[Daedalus685]

The flip side argument is that people lie.

Thus, these policies are meaningless. If a gay person wants to give blood, they will. If a straight person with HIV wants to give blood they will.

Indeed, but they won't all lie.

The screen is to reduce the risk, testing also reducing the risk. Even if half of folks lie the screen still cut the risks in half..

That being said, there is no reason that the causal factors cannot be used to screen and absolutely no reason that a particular group needs to be singled out for a causal factor that exists in many groups. The screens are simply archaic given how much more we know about risk factors now.

 

[Daedalus685]

Because if you really remove all PC and go by just stats then we would also not allow blacks to give blood. So there is still a lot of anti-gay in the opinion to not accept blood from gays, not just stats.

Exactly... population bans do nothing to screen for a specific factor.. whether it be extremely many unknown partners, anal sex, sharing a needle etc.

We don't single out an entire group based on them being statistically more likely to use injected drugs because we simply ask if they used the drugs... how is this different except that people might get scared to be asked about sex?

 

[MJinZ]

Exactly... population bans do nothing to screen for a specific factor.. whether it be extremely many unknown partners, anal sex, sharing a needle etc.

We don't single out an entire group based on them being statistically more likely to use injected drugs because we simply ask if they used the drugs... how is this different except that people might get scared to be asked about sex?

Mostly, I think a lot of people are scared of catching the gay. :hmm:

 

[Daedalus685]

Mostly, I think a lot of people are scared of catching the gay. :hmm:

Hmm yes.. I believe that is one of my points

 

[Thump553]

I'm a regular blood donor. This is not the only apparently overly encompassing question they ask (sex with a male even once since 197X, intravenous illegal drug use ever, sex with a person from Africa ever, spend a certain amount of time in Great Britain (mad cow diease), steroid use, tatoos or piercings within the last xx months, etc). While I can see the offense in these questions (I have healthy relatives who are former donors who no longer can), there is a reasonable relation to keeping the blood supply as clean as possible. Testing isn't perfect-there are incubation periods and mistakes made.

Blood donations in the entire US are now all voluntary. Everyone who qualifies should donate-right now the donor population tends to be pretty elderly.

BTW the questioning is done in private along with certain preliminary tests. Even if you went with a friend, they would never know why you are excluded.

 

[MJinZ]

I'm never going to donate blood. My excuse is Accutane lol, even though it was many years ago.

 

[Daedalus685]

I'm a regular blood donor. This is not the only apparently overly encompassing question they ask (sex with a male even once since 197X, intravenous illegal drug use ever, sex with a person from Africa ever, spend a certain amount of time in Great Britain (mad cow diease), steroid use, tatoos or piercings within the last xx months, etc). While I can see the offense in these questions (I have healthy relatives who are former donors who no longer can), there is a reasonable relation to keeping the blood supply as clean as possible. Testing isn't perfect-there are incubation periods and mistakes made.

Blood donations in the entire US are now all voluntary. Everyone who qualifies should donate-right now the donor population tends to be pretty elderly.

BTW the questioning is done in private along with certain preliminary tests. Even if you went with a friend, they would never know why you are excluded.

They wouldn't even know you were excluded here as they will still take your blood if you want it tested, just not use it.

Yeah, they do ask a lot of ridiculous questions. Which is part of the problem. We have such a short supply of donors and instead of modifying our screen to be as safe and specific as possible without alienating folks who want to come on out we stick with a list of questions that was pretty out dated eons ago. They seem to simply exclude a population group for life when a new threat comes as a temporary measure that never gets taken off...

 

[Danube]

It just seems wholly unscientific to screen based on a population group that is not the causal factor, or at least not the only one...

It's true other groups have higher rates but the homosexual group is way out in front - and not just for AIDS.

They account for 10% of hepatitis A and 20% of Hepatitis B. 20% of people with HIV have hepatitis C.

65% of new syphilis cases in 2007 were homosexual men says CDC.

Anal infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) is "at near universal levels in gay men"

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/44684313-9869-4FE9-BFE4-2B7CB5859216.asp

New strains of MRSA were found to be at epidemic levels in urban homosexual populations. VRE is also a problem.


"Staph Strain More Virulent Than MRSA Infecting Gay Men"

Gay male residents of San Francisco were 13 times more likely to have the infection than other residents of the city, according to a study published by the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday. In Boston, up to half of gay men with staph infections are afflicted with the more drug-resistant strain, the study reported. Multidrug-resistant MRSA is also more prevalent in people with HIV


http://www.staphnews.com/mrsa/staph-strain-more-virulent-than-mrsa-infecting-gay-men/

 

[MJinZ]

It's true other groups have higher rates but the homosexual group is way out in front - and not just for AIDS.

They account for 10% of hepatitis A and 20% of Hepatitis B. 20% of people with HIV have hepatitis C.

65% of new syphilis cases in 2007 were homosexual men says CDC.

Anal infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) is "at near universal levels in gay men"

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/44684313-9869-4FE9-BFE4-2B7CB5859216.asp

New strains of MRSA were found to be at epidemic levels in urban homosexual populations. VRE is also a problem.


"Staph Strain More Virulent Than MRSA Infecting Gay Men"

Gay male residents of San Francisco were 13 times more likely to have the infection than other residents of the city, according to a study published by the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday. In Boston, up to half of gay men with staph infections are afflicted with the more drug-resistant strain, the study reported. Multidrug-resistant MRSA is also more prevalent in people with HIV


http://www.staphnews.com/mrsa/staph-strain-more-virulent-than-mrsa-infecting-gay-men/

Or otherwise known as completely useless or irrelevant statistics.

Hepatitis - Yes, because of HIV.

Nearly 50% of Syphilis... nothing to see here

HPV - Like a common cold, only you have no symptoms.

MRSAs - you get these when your immune system is weak. Oh look, what's HIV again?

You might as well have just posted "Gay men are more likely to have HIV, and uh... flus and shit from having HIV".

Good work!

 

[Carmen813]

Hmmm...interesting.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

How about we allow them to give blood by we must label it as blood from a homosexual. If YOU want to take the additional risk of receiving their blood, go ahead. Just don't make me do it.

Please realize that this isn't about punishing gays...this is about the fact that MSMs receive and give HIV far more often and easily than other groups. Yes, it would also stand that women who receive anal sex should also be excluded, but I'm willing to bet that MOST women do not participate in this activity, whereas almost all gay men do. Furthermore, the women that do have anal sex most likely receive it from a straight partner who is also in a low risk group.

It is about probability. I don't know why so many of you deny that gay men have a higher rate of HIV transmission. It doesn't need to be political. This is like saying "Blacks of Sub-Saharan ancestry have a higher rate of sickle cell." While others can have the defect, this group is at very high risk.

We are not all homogenous and cannot be treated as such. Accept the fact that gay men (not lesbians, now men who have anal sex with women) are at much higher risk for HIV than other demographics, regardless of how you feel about them. Then accept the fact that certain high-risk lifestyles (such as MSM or IV drug use) preclude you from giving blood.

 

[MJinZ]

How about we allow them to give blood by we must label it as blood from a homosexual. If YOU want to take the additional risk of receiving their blood, go ahead. Just don't make me do it.

Please realize that this isn't about punishing gays...this is about the fact that MSMs receive and give HIV far more often and easily than other groups. Yes, it would also stand that women who receive anal sex should also be excluded, but I'm willing to bet that MOST women do not participate in this activity, whereas almost all gay men do. Furthermore, the women that do have anal sex most likely receive it from a straight partner who is also in a low risk group.

It is about probability. I don't know why so many of you deny that gay men have a higher rate of HIV transmission. It doesn't need to be political. This is like saying "Blacks of Sub-Saharan ancestry have a higher rate of sickle cell." While others can have the defect, this group is at very high risk.

We are not all homogenous and cannot be treated as such. Accept the fact that gay men (not lesbians, now men who have anal sex with women) are at much higher risk for HIV than other demographics, regardless of how you feel about them. Then accept the fact that certain high-risk lifestyles (such as MSM or IV drug use) preclude you from giving blood.

I don't think anyone is denying any of that... did you even read the article or this thread?

I think I'm going to donate blood... to myself every 42 days, so I have a good supply of it for use.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Or otherwise known as completely useless or irrelevant statistics.

Hepatitis - Yes, because of HIV.

Nearly 50% of Syphilis... nothing to see here

HPV - Like a common cold, only you have no symptoms.

MRSAs - you get these when your immune system is weak. Oh look, what's HIV again?

You might as well have just posted "Gay men are more likely to have HIV, and uh... flus and shit from having HIV".

Good work!

WRONG! Anyone can get MRSA. It is a catch-all term to describe a few classes of bacteria that are resistant to certain antibiotics. It usually lives on the skin and enters the body through a wound. And it is VERY deadly and painful.

I'm not sure where you were going with your post. You stated that the reason HIV positive men had all of these problems (HPV, MRSA (wrongly), Syphilis, and Hepatits was because they had a compromised immune system due to HIV. If a large portion of gay men have these diseases for that reason, wouldn't it stand that gay men are more prone to HIV?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I don't think anyone is denying any of that... did you even read the article or this thread?

I think I'm going to donate blood... to myself every 42 days, so I have a good supply of it for use.

I did. And you have people like Daedalus685 asking if it is really fair to screen people based on sexual orientation. The answer is yes.

 

[MJinZ]

WRONG! Anyone can get MRSA. It is a catch-all term to describe a few classes of bacteria that are resistant to certain antibiotics. It usually lives on the skin and enters the body through a wound. And it is VERY deadly and painful.

I'm not sure where you were going with your post. You stated that the reason HIV positive men had all of these problems (HPV, MRSA (wrongly), Syphilis, and Hepatits was because they had a compromised immune system due to HIV. If a large portion of gay men have these diseases for that reason, wouldn't it stand that gay men are more prone to HIV?

MRSA is not easy to catch unless you're weakened. That's the point.

 

[Danube]

WRONG! Anyone can get MRSA. It is a catch-all term to describe a few classes of bacteria that are resistant to certain antibiotics. It usually lives on the skin and enters the body through a wound. And it is VERY deadly and painful.

I'm not sure where you were going with your post. You stated that the reason HIV positive men had all of these problems (HPV, MRSA (wrongly), Syphilis, and Hepatits was because they had a compromised immune system due to HIV. If a large portion of gay men have these diseases for that reason, wouldn't it stand that gay men are more prone to HIV?

Anyone can get MRSA but homosexual men get a lot more of it. They don't get all these diseases just because they have compromised immune systems. They have compromised immune systems because many of their practices are unhygienic. They also get shigella more often from coming in contact with fecal matter. I mean seriously..

 

[Daedalus685]

I did. And you have people like Daedalus685 asking if it is really fair to screen people based on sexual orientation. The answer is yes.

Hey now.. did you read any of my posts?

I said little to nothing about fair or unfair... It is stupid to screen for a population statistic when we could screen for the causal factors... The only reason we do it the way we do is we are either stupid or are just that afraid of homosexuals.

If you are against getting the blood of someone who has a higher risk then why wouldn't you be fully supportive of actually managing the risks instead of ignoring massive groups who have an equal risk of catching the disease...

Never did I deny that there is a higher risk.. or that it should not be screened for... only that the current regulations are pointlessly aimed at a single group and ignore factors that if we payed attention to could greatly increase our safe blood supply....

 

[Daedalus685]

Anyone can get MRSA but homosexual men get a lot more of it. They don't get all these diseases just because they have compromised immune systems. They have compromised immune systems because many of their practices are unhygienic. They also get shigella more often from coming in contact with fecal matter. I mean seriously..

Stay in school children...

Might be a nice idea to try and smile once in a while too kids.

 

[MJinZ]

Anyone can get MRSA but homosexual men get a lot more of it. They don't get all these diseases just because they have compromised immune systems. They have compromised immune systems because many of their practices are unhygienic. They also get shigella more often from coming in contact with fecal matter. I mean seriously..

You should be a comedian.

 

[RapidSnail]

A few months ago CDC said homosexual men were 44x more likely to be diagnosed with HIV.

"CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men


"A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women."(63% of HIV diagnoses in UK)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

This part was the most concerning. I realize unprotected anal sex is quite a bit more risky than conventional intercourse, but infection diagnostics being 44 times higher in homosexual/bisexual men is concerning. I also understand that different populations have different degrees of infection rates, but that seems very significant for such a serious and deadly virus.

Of course an issue such as lying could always be exploited, but I am not one to think that homosexuals at large are just waiting for the first opportunity to transmit HIV through blood donations, so I would think that lying simply for those reasons is likely. However, lying out of privacy concerns may be prevalent, but again I would suppose most blood donors would be aware of such policies before undertaking such a procedure.

I think that it is statistically difficult to deny the connection between HIV infection rates and MSM. The evolution of new retroviral strains is still a risk factor, and I think the ACBSA is placing this ban, not to effectively harm homosexuals, or even prevent all from donating blood (lying, etc.), but to reduce the risk of blood born viral infections as much as possible until technology can provide a remedy.