Changing Ban On Homosexual Blood Donations Not Advised

[Exterous]

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?

From what I remember the last time I gave blood they asked
"Have you ever had unprotected anal sex" and "Have you had unprotected sex withsomeone other than your spouse in the last x years"

 

[MJinZ]

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.

HIV is a very very rare disease in the United States, so 44 times super low rates is still very low.

It's not surprising at all since Gay Men are able to spread it much more easily. Straight men and Straight Women, for obvious reasons, can't.

Oh, and black people make up basically 50% of HIV positive patients. Hate to be sexually racist but if you stick having sex with other races, you're far less likely to ever come in contact.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Per the previous thread, I supported allowing homosexuals to donate blood on the basis of good screening for infectious disease. The news that new strains of HIV are difficult to detect and arise prior to the blood getting into circulation is troubling, especially if it increased 5x after the UK allowed it...

While one could say that people could lie to give blood, which I am sure some do (not to mention, there is no blood test to see if one is a homosexual), many people will not lie.

 

[Daedalus685]

Per the previous thread, I supported allowing homosexuals to donate blood on the basis of good screening for infectious disease. The news that new strains of HIV are difficult to detect and arise prior to the blood getting into circulation is troubling, especially if it increased 5x after the UK allowed it...

While one could say that people could lie to give blood, which I am sure some do (not to mention, there is no blood test to see if one is a homosexual), many people will not lie.

The UK has always banned donation, this has not changed and the study linked in the OP has nothing to do with actual numbers.

The 5x was an assumption they calculated based on worst case risks. If there was no screening, homosexuals donated proportionately to their national numbers, the infection rate of these chaps was equal to the total population infection rate of homosexual/bisexual men, and detection methods fail x% of the time then the infection rate could increase 5 fold.

This of course ignores that they can still screen based on the actual risk factor (the unsafe sex, or at least the less safe sex) and avoid the whole "am I being homophobic" thing entirely.

 

[RapidSnail]

HIV is a very very rare disease in the United States, so 44 times super low rates is still very low.

It's not surprising at all since Gay Men are able to spread it much more easily. Straight men and Straight Women, for obvious reasons, can't.

Oh, and black people make up basically 50% of HIV positive patients. Hate to be sexually racist but if you stick having sex with other races, you're far less likely to ever come in contact.

All good points.

Although the US has just over 1 million estimated cases of HIV, a small fraction of the 400 million population, HIV is still a serious disease. The economics of treatment, as well as the undesirable effects of the disease and the cocktail, are not things to be taken lightly. The medical community is very much behind preventing disease as well as treating it, and I think the CDC is not concerned with how many cases might be transmitted each year through blood donations, but the fact that it still occurs. Again, I suspect that this issue is temporary, and that new technology will soon be able to identify new mutations rapidly, allowing all demographics do donate just the same. In the meantime, I do not believe that preventing donations by a group is infringing on any rights. If someone wants to help that much, then not being able to give blood is a minor speed bump in humanitarian efforts.

It is correct that black people account for just about 50% of cases of AIDS in the US. However, broad ethnic categories such as "black" and "white" do not take into account the type of individual that is likely to spread infection. Suppose that 75% of new HIV infections in the black category came from IV drug users. That means that of ~400,000 black persons with HIV/AIDS, 300,000 are chronic drug users. Categorizing the type of individual, rather than race, allows for comparisons between all demographics and means that these subcategories are likely to be more accurate descriptors of risk factors in group populations than more generalized ones. The fact that more blacks are at risk than other minorities is might not be a product of race, but could originate from cultural distinctions, practices, and individual preferences. Perhaps because poverty rates are higher in black communities, more are likely to abuse IV drugs and contract an infection. Does that extend to all blacks? Of course not, but it is much more likely to be a characteristic of the sub-group within that racial class, which can extend to all other situations.

So far MSM is proven to be a high risk category, along with IV drug users. Individuals with an extensive history in either category are not discriminated upon by being banned from donation. Rather statistical evidence and analysis by virologists and other researchers evaluate percentages and likelihoods of all groups before making decisions like this. I think that any respectable person who is at a high risk, would understand why he or she might be placed in such a category. It's not about taking rights away, but protecting the health of citizens as much as possible.

 

[Daedalus685]

All good points.

Although the US has just over 1 million estimated cases of HIV, a small fraction of the 400 million population, HIV is still a serious disease. The economics of treatment, as well as the undesirable effects of the disease and the cocktail, are not things to be taken lightly. The medical community is very much behind preventing disease as well as treating it, and I think the CDC is not concerned with how many cases might be transmitted each year through blood donations, but the fact that it still occurs. Again, I suspect that this issue is temporary, and that new technology will soon be able to identify new mutations rapidly, allowing all demographics do donate just the same. In the meantime, I do not believe that preventing donations by a group is infringing on any rights. If someone wants to help that much, then not being able to give blood is a minor speed bump in humanitarian efforts.

It is correct that black people account for just about 50% of cases of AIDS in the US. However, broad ethnic categories such as "black" and "white" do not take into account the type of individual that is likely to spread infection. Suppose that 75% of new HIV infections in the black category came from IV drug users. That means that of ~400,000 black persons with HIV/AIDS, 300,000 are chronic drug users. Categorizing the type of individual, rather than race, allows for comparisons between all demographics and means that these subcategories are likely to be more accurate descriptors of risk factors in group populations than more generalized ones. The fact that more blacks are at risk than other minorities is might not be a product of race, but could originate from cultural distinctions, practices, and individual preferences. Perhaps because poverty rates are higher in black communities, more are likely to abuse IV drugs and contract an infection. Does that extend to all blacks? Of course not, but it is much more likely to be a characteristic of the sub-group within that racial class, which can extend to all other situations.

So far MSM is proven to be a high risk category, along with IV drug users. Individuals with an extensive history in either category are not discriminated upon by being banned from donation. Rather statistical evidence and analysis by virologists and other researchers evaluate percentages and likelihoods of all groups before making decisions like this. I think that any respectable person who is at a high risk, would understand why he or she might be placed in such a category. It's not about taking rights away, but protecting the health of citizens as much as possible.

Your example of IV drugs is a pretty good one to show why we should not be using MSM as a criteria. It is not the act of being homosexual but the act of having anal sex, specifically receiving it, that increases the chance of spreading HIV. By focusing on gay men we are allowing a group of people that would be nearly as statistically risky while at the same time disqualifying many folk that would not pose a risk.

I just feel that screens should be as specific as possible. Statistically speaking we could give a good reason not to allow the group of people called "humans" to give blood. Things like virology are rather well understood, we know the risky acts that allow it to spread and there is no reason not to focus on them.

 

[RapidSnail]

Your example of IV drugs is a pretty good one to show why we should not be using MSM as a criteria. It is not the act of being homosexual but the act of having anal sex, specifically receiving it, that increases the chance of spreading HIV. By focusing on gay men we are allowing a group of people that would be nearly as statistically risky while at the same time disqualifying many folk that would not pose a risk.

I just feel that screens should be as specific as possible. Statistically speaking we could give a good reason not to allow the group of people called "humans" to give blood. Things like virology are rather well understood, we know the risky acts that allow it to spread and there is no reason not to focus on them.

That's just the idea. Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. WSM and homosexual males who favor oral or manual stimulation are not of the same risk factor. I believe the British article mentions this as well. However, it is well known that MSM* as a subcategory of those who have anal sex are a rather large risk factor. That's why questions should focus on specific sexual activities rather than sexual orientation.

*I use MSM to mean men who regularly engage in anal sex with other men.

 

[Daedalus685]

That's just the idea. Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. WSM and homosexual males who favor oral or manual stimulation are not of the same risk factor. I believe the British article mentions this as well. However, it is well known that MSM* as a subcategory of those who have anal sex are a rather large risk factor. That's why questions should focus on specific sexual activities rather than sexual orientation.

*I use MSM to mean men who regularly engage in anal sex with other men.

Aye, the issue is that many places screen with very poorly worded questions that avoid mention of things like anal and what not. I suppose the blood donation clinic thinks we are all 14 year olds and woudl run away when asked about our sex lives .

 

[Vette73]

As pointed out gays can lie, but you have a much harder time lieing about race. So again to remove all PC from the "study" just keep blacks out since its easy to spot.

Could be blacks have a higher rate of HIV/Aids since many of the gay black men are on the "down low" and cross it over to easy black women. So just remove blacks and you get rid of a very high rate of those that are very risky and have a rate many times higher than asians and whites.

Again remove PC and go by stats.

 

[werepossum]

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.

I used to be a regular donor (haven't since I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer) and got the same questions. My favorite was when the woman had to look me in the eye and ask if anyone had paid me for sex within the last ninety days. It's just common sense procedures to protect the blood supply from the highest risk groups, and only the worst of the progressives get ass-chapped (no pun intended) over this. Those are the people who similarly get ass-chapped about singling out any group (except Christians and conservatives of course) for anything other than free loot, no matter how valid the reason or how dire the risk.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

I think the flag is part of our history.

I also think it is racist.

 

[Daedalus685]

I used to be a regular donor (haven't since I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer) and got the same questions. My favorite was when the woman had to look me in the eye and ask if anyone had paid me for sex within the last ninety days. It's just common sense procedures to protect the blood supply from the highest risk groups, and only the worst of the progressives get ass-chapped (no pun intended) over this. Those are the people who similarly get ass-chapped about singling out any group (except Christians and conservatives of course) for anything other than free loot, no matter how valid the reason or how dire the risk.

The majority of the problem many (ok ok.. weasel word... I should say "I") of us have with this has nothing to do with being "progressive". To screen based on a population risk factor instead of an actual causal activity risk factor betrays how statistics fail many people. It doesn't work as well, is wholly unscientific, and allows there to be an aura of unfairness when it really does not need to exist at all.

Also, I've never singled out Christians.. I happen to find all religious people silly... though not necessarily stupid.