Changing Ban On Homosexual Blood Donations Not Advised

[Danube]

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

 

[Babbles]

I hate to see groups of people generalized as such, however on the other hand I understand how statistical probability could indicate that by allowing such blood the nation's blood supply may be negatively impacted.

 

[OutHouse]

this is a good thing.

 

[nageov3t]

due to the fact that we don't make donaters take lie detector tests, isn't all blood tested thoroughly regardless?

 

[MJinZ]

I don't get it. I thought people lie? Or perhaps we live in a honest to goodness paradise afterall.

 

[MJinZ]

due to the fact that we don't make donaters take lie detector tests, isn't all blood tested thoroughly regardless?

LOL, we posted the same thought at the same time.

 

[Murloc]

does this mean they don't check if ppl has got aids?

I understand that this is not racist in any way though, it's just a question of statistics and probabilities. If the additional blood we could get from homosexuals is not worth the risk, then it's right to do so.

 

[Babbles]

due to the fact that we don't make donaters take lie detector tests, isn't all blood tested thoroughly regardless?

It is, but I wonder if you lie and if the blood was found to be positive for something then if you could be held liable for fraud?

I don't know, I'm just asking and throwing that out there.

 

[MJinZ]

It is, but I wonder if you lie and if the blood was found to be positive for something then if you could be held liable for fraud?

I don't know, I'm just asking and throwing that out there.

OMG, the HIV proves you are teh gay.

 

[Daedalus685]

does this mean they don't check if ppl has got aids?

I understand that this is not racist in any way though, it's just a question of statistics and probabilities. If the additional blood we could get from homosexuals is not worth the risk, then it's right to do so.

My issue with this whole thing is how silly asking if someone is homosexual is at all.... The risky sex life of an individual is what predisposes them to a higher risk of a disease.. not sexual orientation.

Screening is a good thing.. asking irrelevant questions is totally another though.. specially when the same screening could be applied without coming off as hating as the OP.

As far as testing it all goes, that certainly occurs with the Canadian blood donors clinics but they still screen to reduce probabilities given than no test is fool proof. In fact many folks use the clinic as a means to get a blood test anonymously as you are required to apply a yes or no bar code to the bag yourself (none of the nurses know if you use the yes or no code) as to whether you want to donate it after it is extracted.

 

[spidey07]

My issue with this whole thing is how silly asking if someone is homosexual is at all.... The risky sex life of an individual is what predisposes them to a higher risk of a disease.. not sexual orientation.

Screening is a good thing.. asking irrelevant questions is totally another though.. specially when the same screening could be applied without coming off as hating as the OP.

As far as testing it all goes, that certainly occurs with the Canadian blood donors clinics but they still screen to reduce probabilities given than no test is fool proof. In fact many folks use the clinic as a means to get a blood test anonymously as you are required to apply a yes or no bar code to the bag yourself (none of the nurses know if you use the yes or no code) as to whether you want to donate it after it is extracted.

Actually it is the homosexual act that makes them much more susceptible to getting and spreading HIV which is why you don't want blood from them.

 

[MJinZ]

My issue with this whole thing is how silly asking if someone is homosexual is at all.... The risky sex life of an individual is what predisposes them to a higher risk of a disease.. not sexual orientation.

Screening is a good thing.. asking irrelevant questions is totally another though.. specially when the same screening could be applied without coming off as hating as the OP.

As far as testing it all goes, that certainly occurs with the Canadian blood donors clinics but they still screen to reduce probabilities given than no test is fool proof. In fact many folks use the clinic as a means to get a blood test anonymously as you are required to apply a yes or no bar code to the bag yourself (none of the nurses know if you use the yes or no code) as to whether you want to donate it after it is extracted.

That's only partially true. Men are men... it's the fact that anal fissures contribute more to transmittance than a vagina.

 

[werepossum]

My issue with this whole thing is how silly asking if someone is homosexual is at all.... The risky sex life of an individual is what predisposes them to a higher risk of a disease.. not sexual orientation.

Screening is a good thing.. asking irrelevant questions is totally another though.. specially when the same screening could be applied without coming off as hating as the OP.

As far as testing it all goes, that certainly occurs with the Canadian blood donors clinics but they still screen to reduce probabilities given than no test is fool proof. In fact many folks use the clinic as a means to get a blood test anonymously as you are required to apply a yes or no bar code to the bag yourself (none of the nurses know if you use the yes or no code) as to whether you want to donate it after it is extracted.

The reason they ask and prohibit gay donors is that periodically new variants of HIV, being an active retrovirus, pop up which do not register on existing tests. With HIV/AIDS still being predominantly spread through homosexual sex and intravenous drug use in this country, it makes sense to ask for each and to prohibit these groups from donating blood. For the life of me I don't see how this connects to DADT though, as all soldiers are regularly screened. If anything allowing homosexuals to serve openly would presumably allow those who are otherwise out of the closet to be prohibited from giving blood and/or screened more intensely, assuming political correctness didn't require us to pretend that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted primarily or at least greatly disproportionally through homosexual sex.

 

[nageov3t]

more importantly, can we discuss why we don't have chips installed in us already that actively monitors our blood for diseases and poisoning? I want my hoverboards damnit ><

 

[ElFenix]

due to the fact that we don't make donaters take lie detector tests, isn't all blood tested thoroughly regardless?

problem is that if there is a new strain it might not be caught by the test.

the real unfair thing here is that a man or woman can have sex with an HIV infected person of the opposite sex and only has to wait a year before being elligible again.

It is, but I wonder if you lie and if the blood was found to be positive for something then if you could be held liable for fraud?

I don't know, I'm just asking and throwing that out there.

i guarantee there are penalties involved.

 

[kitkat22]

problem is that if there is a new strain it might not be caught by the test.

the real unfair thing here is that a man or woman can have sex with an HIV infected person of the opposite sex and only has to wait a year before being elligible again.





i guarantee there are penalties involved.

Indeed there are. My brother was one of those hemophiliacs who contracted AIDs through a blood transfusion after a tonsilectomy. I would hate to see another outbreak in a children's hospital with a new generation of 3-4yo kids with HIV.

I wholeheartedly agree with the policy. In medicine we run statistics on everything and race/genetics plays a huge part in determining risk. Like African Americans are more likely to have high blood pressure and coronary artery disease. Childhood obesity among the Hispanic population is higher than the national average. White people are more likely to have skin cancer. Homosexual men are more likely to have HIV and so forth. The statistics are there to help doctors, including myself, assess or ask the appropriate questions to help someone.

Right now the blood supply is pretty good. The risk of contracting a blood borne pathogen is well into the 1 in 1000000s. That said, physicians are working to cut back on the amount of blood given.

 

[Double Trouble]

I've said all along... the decision to allow or not allow gay men to donate blood should have nothing to do with politics and/or political correctness and everything to do with statistics and analysis of safety and risk factors compared to potential increase in blood supply.

I'm fine with either allowing or disallowing, provided it makes scientific sense. It would appear right now that it just doesn't make sense to allow gay men to donate blood, political correctness be damned.

 

[Vette73]

I've said all along... the decision to allow or not allow gay men to donate blood should have nothing to do with politics and/or political correctness and everything to do with statistics and analysis of safety and risk factors compared to potential increase in blood supply.

I'm fine with either allowing or disallowing, provided it makes scientific sense. It would appear right now that it just doesn't make sense to allow gay men to donate blood, political correctness be damned.

If we go by just stats then we should also not take blood from Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. All of those groups have a much higher rate for Hiv/Aids.

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm


I say we put up a sign at blood banks, Whites and Asians only. :hmm:

 

[Daedalus685]

That's only partially true. Men are men... it's the fact that anal fissures contribute more to transmittance than a vagina.

Aye I know... but since when do only gay men have anal sex?

One could simply ask "Did you take or give it in the ass" and we could all be happy.... There are plenty of homosexuals that don't do it, and plenty of straight folk that do is all I am saying. This is why I find the whole thing rather odd.

 

[rudder]

does this mean they don't check if ppl has got aids?

I understand that this is not racist in any way though, it's just a question of statistics and probabilities. If the additional blood we could get from homosexuals is not worth the risk, then it's right to do so.

Yes they check. What they are doing is trying to reduce costs. If you have a segment of the population that has a much greater chance to have HIV infected blood... and you have a limited source of funding... would you not simply block a group from donating that could result in more failed tests and thrown out blood?

If a gay person wants to donate they can. The only thing stopping them is answering one or two questions in an untruthful way. It's not like the army where they check your bunghole to see if it is the size of a mason jar (LOL, I had to do this back in '92 not sure if they still check).

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Aye I know... but since when do only gay men have anal sex?

One could simply ask "Did you take or give it in the ass" and we could all be happy.... There are plenty of homosexuals that don't do it, and plenty of straight folk that do is all I am saying. This is why I find the whole thing rather odd.

There are many straight men who are married, but look for guys on the side.

Also, isn't it the act of receiving anal the part that increases your risks of getting it from an HIV positive man? Which if that's the case, then the better question would be "have you received anal sex" since either men or women receive it?

 

[MJinZ]

Aye I know... but since when do only gay men have anal sex?

One could simply ask "Did you take or give it in the ass" and we could all be happy.... There are plenty of homosexuals that don't do it, and plenty of straight folk that do is all I am saying. This is why I find the whole thing rather odd.

Not really. A women may get HIV but have more trouble passing it on (unless she grows a penis).

 

[Daedalus685]

There are many straight men who are married, but look for guys on the side.

Also, isn't it the act of receiving anal the part that increases your risks of getting it from an HIV positive man? Which if that's the case, then the better question would be "have you received anal sex" since either men or women receive it?

I am not a virologist, I am not sure how the uptake relates between various organs. Though you have to understand that my exact wording might have been a bit silly on purpose .

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...

What is the reason the screen cannot simple be "have you had intercourse with a partner who's medical history is unknown or who suffers from one of the following conditions?" and "have you had unprotected anal sex in the last x years?"

Isn't asking gender/orientation specific questions reducing the effectiveness of the screen?

 

[Daedalus685]

Not really. A women may get HIV but have more trouble passing it on (unless she grows a penis).

I was under the impression that transferal was high both ways provided the concentration of the virus was high (which it is in said anal fissures).

It certainly would not be an insignificant risk anyway. Does anyone know the comparative transfer rates between... for lack of a better term... top and bottom?


EDIT: I looked it up... 1.7&#37; chance to transmit for receive, only 0.04% for other sexual acts according to wiki. I suppose that is an interesting thing right there.

But none the less, does the current screening not ignore women who would have an equally large chance of acquiring the disease if they partake in the same sex lives?

 

[MJinZ]

I was under the impression that transferal was high both ways provided the concentration of the virus was high (which it is in said anal fissures).

It certainly would not be an insignificant risk anyway. Does anyone know the comparative transfer rates between... for lack of a better term... top and bottom?

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