Why can't you give blood if you are gay?

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
The blood van showed up. A good friend of mine made some comment about him having a shorter line at the deli and I thought nothing of it. Then they were talking about it later and he explained he can't give blood because he's gay.... he's GAY.

He's had the same partner since he was 15 years old (30 now) and is one of the most outstanding people I've met and he can't give blood because he's gay. He'd pass every single retarded question they ask him except for "are you gay?" and he can't give blood because of it.

I can't believe it.


Not much else good can be done here.

ATOT Moderator ElFenix
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
I believe because statistically, at least in the past (no idea if its still true) gays had a higher % of certain STDs, HIV in particular. There's a ton of stipulations that prevent you from giving blood...if you've been to various countries where these diseases are more prevalent, if you've gotten a tattoo recently, etc.

Just the way it goes, trying to keep people safe, do YOU want to end up like Eric Cartman?
 

Demo24

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
8,356
9
81
never heard that one, I would assume its something leftover from the HIV scare 20+ years ago.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Wow, that's terrible. What the fuck do they think is going to happen, do they think "teh ghey" is contagious? This is what happens when morons are in charge of things.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: manowar821
Wow, that's terrible. What the fuck do they think is going to happen, do they think "teh ghey" is contagious? This is what happens when morons are in charge of things.

no its because idiots think HIV is caused by being gay
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
99,445
17,581
126
at least a quarter of the population cannot give blood. So don't worry too much about it.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
Wow, that's terrible. What the fuck do they think is going to happen, do they think "teh ghey" is contagious? This is what happens when morons are in charge of things.

HIV is way more common in gay men then any other demographic in this country. Anal sex has a greater chance of transmission of the virus than other forms of intercourse.

Should your friend be allowed to give blood? Absolutely.

Is banning gay men from donating blood a logical move? Completely.

It's a question of statistics, and I have no doubt that this policy prevents a large number of contaminations of the blood supply.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/...ces/factsheets/msm.htm

Center for Disease Control says that of HIV cases reported in male adults and adolescents, 15% is hetero sex, 13% is dirty needles, 5% is dirty needles or gay sex, and 67% is just gay sex.

 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
can't give blood if you have had tatts or piercings in the last year or have ever sold cawk or paid for poon either.

just statistics
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
I believe because statistically, at least in the past (no idea if its still true) gays had a higher % of certain STDs, HIV in particular. There's a ton of stipulations that prevent you from giving blood...if you've been to various countries where these diseases are more prevalent, if you've gotten a tattoo recently, etc.

Just the way it goes, trying to keep people safe, do YOU want to end up like Eric Cartman?

This is the rationale behind it. It's absolutely retarded though. Being gay is not indicative of having an STD, particularly AIDS, anymore than being straight is proof of cleanliness. The Red Cross tests every single pint of blood they get (they're required to), so it's absolutely retarded to prevent an entire class of people from giving blood based on an outdated fear that AIDS is a disease that only affects the queer community.
 

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

  • Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

  • Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.

  • Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.

  • Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called "window period". The "window period" is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.

  • FDA's MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the "window period" of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.

  • Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.

  • Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.

  • No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.

  • Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA's first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.

  • Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.
 

bigrash

Lifer
Feb 20, 2001
17,648
28
91
Originally posted by: sdifox
at least a quarter of the population cannot give blood. So don't worry too much about it.

exactly! If you look at the list of reasons why you can't donate, there's tons of other reasons (being in africa, europe during certain year, having sex with prostitute, etc) why you can't donate and all of them are medically reasonable.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

There's a margin of error in tests and more human error in processing. Introducing the highest risk group to the equation is unnecessarily reckless.
 

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

Yeah. If they test every single pint of blood that they get then why should anything matter? If they are in such need of blood then why not take every pint they can get and toss the blood they can't use... that's rediculous...

Then when they are in desperate need they can guilt trip themselves for not taking all of the blood that might possibly have been good blood.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
99,445
17,581
126
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

Err, ever heard of the Tainted Blood Scandal up here in Iglooland?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

Eh, its best to try to weed out blood that might be infected BEFORE it gets to testing...better safe than sorry, what if there's an error in testing?

Obviously its not to say all gay people have HIV, juts like all people who have been to Africa or have gotten a tattoo recently have it either...but why not remove demographics that have a higher statistical chance? As long as there isn't a massive blood shortage, I'm ok with it.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

There's a margin of error in tests and more human error in processing. Introducing the highest risk group to the equation is unnecessarily reckless.

When I donate blood, they fill up like 5-6 test tubes as well. That should be more than enough to do ample testing.

Frankly, I'd rather take a chance on blood that has been double tested than not having any blood.
 

Mr Pickles

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
4,103
1
0
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

There's a margin of error in tests. Introducing the highest risk group to the equation is unnecessarily reckless.

Then why not work to sincerely reduce that margin of error and start accepting all blood? That would only seem logical. There are so many people that are willing to give blood right now, unsure if their blood is acceptable or not.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time.

 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
(ripped from another of my recent postal ravings)

Complete BS. Another stupid concept outed.

I guess you never saw the line of diseased and infected homeless drunks and drug users outside your friendly downtown blood bank just before it opens? They hardly ever wash, share just about everything, and are frequently infected with all kinds of nice infectious diseases many of which they don't even screen them for. Which is partly why they now have substitutes for whole blood they can use in many cases, but the price is high. So not all hospitals even stock it. But they still need various blood components until they create substitutes for those. So the need for blood will continue for a while. And the miserable miscreants will continue to donate it.

And at these many blood banks where homeless gather, there appear to be no standards at all while the staff looks the other way while the filthy donors are obviously lying about all the questions.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MrLee
We watch these rediculous guilt trip commercials about how giving blood once could save 5 lives and how precious of an act it is to give blood and then bullshit like this is set in place. I'm floored. There's got to be a much more strategic way to bottle neck a group that might have HIV. I just can't believe it.

they test all the blood as well so there is really no need in it

Err, ever heard of the Tainted Blood Scandal up here in Iglooland?

nope. link?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,710
31,074
146
Originally posted by: Nitemare
can't give blood if you have had tatts or piercings in the last year or have ever sold cawk or paid for poon either.

just statistics

yeah, pretty much. Still rather silly in this day and age though.