And gay people still cannot donate blood because????

[cboy4]

I mean seriously, what is this, 1977? :wtf:

Gay student gets hate mail for activism

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/January/16/local/stories/04local.htm

SANTA CRUZ — A Harbor High School student who protested rules that outlaw gay men from donating blood is receiving hate-filled and harassing mail at the school.

Ronnie Childers, Harbor's senior class president, said Monday he's received about 50 letters attacking his sexuality since his complaints about national blood donor rules, and his photo, were published in a Sentinel story last month. The story later attracted state and national attention.

<snip>

The Red Cross and other blood-collection organizations have lobbied the FDA to relax the rules, which were established during the AIDS scare in the 1980s, but, so far, the FDA has resisted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701805.html

FDA to Review Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; Page A06

The Food and Drug Administration is considering revising its policy that bars as a blood donor any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, officials said yesterday.

The change in policy is being recommended by the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, which collect virtually all the blood used for transfusions nationwide.

The FDA implemented the lifetime ban in the mid-1980s when concerns about the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, were running high and many questions remained about the ease with which people could spread the virus and the reliability of screening methods. Since then, the accuracy of testing has improved substantially, as have questionnaires that all donors answer to identify those posing the greatest risk, Dodge said.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. because

that's part of our agenda! We will use our blood to spread gay everywhere on Earth!

[Horse with no Name]

4. Your post is funny

But probably very true.
I have had patients say they would rather die than get "Negro" blood.

[BayCityProgressive]

12. Good

let them die then.

[cboy4]

8. That's pretty funny. On the other hand, it's scary to know there are

fundies who believe that!! :eyes:

[shadowknows69]

10. How many pints to turn a person gay

is there a point where they just go Bi?

[Turbineguy]

14. Now that you mention it...

A few years ago, my Wife had a blood transfusion following an operation. Later she smiled at a female nurse. Hmmm... you just never know.:crazy:

[Dorian Gray]

117. I think that it's because of the higher instance of HIV

which still is a stupid reason because of testing for diseases. But, I'm still not able to give blood as I lived in the UK and Hong Kong. It has to do with blood borne diseases.

[Jamastiene]

130. Why are they not rejecting African American blood too then?

They have even higher instances of HIV nowadays. It's not like they should beg for blood then reject it based on the fear of a disease they can easily test for. If they need it bad enough, they should drop the bullshit.

[ItNerd4life]

132. Lol. That's brilliant!

It's too bad the Neocons are onto your plan, and that's why they won't let gays donate blood.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Well--we have sooo many heteros that are willing to donate blood

uhhh...wait...did you say we had blood shortages in almost every major city? How can this be?:eyes:

[xultar]

3. Gay is catchy. We don't want it in the blood supply. Too many decorators

would flood the market.

[cboy4]

9. You're silly! =)

:spank:

[JackBeck]

5. Yet another way to make sure we don't spread the gay.

This policy is soo last millennium.

[meegbear]

6. That's horrible ...

ignorant fucks!

Thank you Ronnie Childers for standing up and fighting this.

[sabbat hunter]

7. perceived risk factors

that the gay community is at a high risk for carrying the AIDS virus, that a false negative could happen, potentially spreading the virus.


i disagree with it, that the testing is pretty accurate these days. it should be more of a question of monogamy, for both straight and gays. there should be a question about monogamy, length of time.


additionally there should be a way to donate your blood for research and testing purposes. right now when you donate it can be used for that instead of as a transfustion. you should be able to direct your donation for research, if you are "at high risk". that research can prove useful.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Are there studies to the effect that a gay person's blood is no more likely...

... to carry HIV than a straight person's?

That would close the issue (or "issue") for me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. I'm afraid the reverse is true, in the absence of other knowledge.

If you pick a random gay American and a random straight American then the former is many times more likely to have Aids than the latter (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States).

If you pick a random gay and a random straight who've both passed HIV screening tests, the discrepancy will be much lower in absolute terms, but the ratio will still be the same.

[BlooInBloo]

57. Then, if I'm understanding correctly, it's improper to call it a "perceived" risk factor....

... it's a *genuine* risk factor, no?

Or am I misunderstanding?

[Ms. Toad]

97. There are very accurate tests.

Every donation is tested for HIV. Abstinence, or monogamy for a period before donating (to convert to seropositive) makes the risk virtually identical to heteros.

FWIW, (as closely as I can remember the question) the ban is on anyone who has ever had sex even once with a man who has had sex with another man since 1981.

This is completely unrealistic for a couple of reasons:
A) How would you know? How many of you know the entire sexual history of (all of) our partners since 1981? Aside from the unrealistic assumption that the question can be answered accurately, the ban completely ignores the risks associated with the female partners of closeted bisexuals or males - who often engage in riskier behavior the average gay man. (For a similar analogy, my SIL has had hepatitis for years without knowing it. Once she discovered it, I was nearly barred from donating because of the prohibition on donations from individuals with family members with hepatitis - even though I had been donating for ears with a family member with hepatitis.)

B) A male having sex with another male is not, in and of itself, a risk factor. The risk comes from having sex with an infected man. For example, if a couple have been monogamous for at least year and have tested negative near the end of that year, their risk is virtually identical to a similarly situated heterosexual couple.

The ban needs to be based on behavior, not an isolated sexual encounter - and not with respect to an entire population whose risk factors vary tremendously.

[BlooInBloo]

116. Ok, then back to my original question.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Sodomy is a greater risk factor than vaginal intercourse for HIV and AIDS

That being said, there seems to be an assumption that only homosexual couples engage on sodomy. I don't believe that for a second.

[BlooInBloo]

72. Um, I never so much as suggested anything remotely resemblings that "assumption"...

... I only asked a question.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Oh no I didn't suggest that you did, I just think that a lot of other people do

[BlooInBloo]

74. ah - gotcha.

[Solo_in_MD]

28. Don't forget the lawyers...

I don't believe that the FDA or the various blood agencies (not all are affliated with the Red Cross) are the bad guys here. Until we get a test for AIDS in donated blood, liability risks preclude donations from higher risk groups. Both the FDA and the bloodbanks want to increase the supply. as long as it is safe. More than one hemophiliac contracted AIDS through blood products

[Recursion]

61. As with most things involving AIDS it was more complex than that

I think the number was just over 50 diagnosed as having AIDS based on symptoms, but not all were screened for HIV and, among those that were, not all tested positive. Massive blood or tissue transfusions are extremely immunosuppressive, and any immune system collapse will look like AIDS if that's what you're looking for.

Frankly, the risk of HIV transmission through blood products has always been overblown, but nobody wants to come out and say that. But we're way too paranoid about a lot of things with blood donation, not just sexuality. You can't donate if you lived in England for 6 months, for instance.

[schrodingers_cat]

134. There is a test for HIV in blood donations, as well as hepatitis

it was developed by a biotech that I used to work for, and is used on the entire donated blood supply. If I remember correctly, before they are ok'ed for distribution, minute amounts are withdrawn from each donation, mixed together 10 at a time for expedition of testing, and if a positive shows, then that donation is located and removed.Please feel free to correct me if my memory has failed me on the procedure.
I am also unable to donate, by the way, becuase I lived in Europe for 6 months during the Mad Cow scare, and they don't want my prions.......

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. The problem with monogamy questions is that even if you are monogamous,

you may not know if your partner is.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Because of bigotry and homophobia

This is a very big anger point for me. Not only can I not give blood, but I am repeatedly forced to explain my absense whenever my employer takes part in a blood drive.

[libnnc]

15. I hear ya. It's pissed me off for years.

When people approach me for on campus blood drives, I always say, "Y'all don't want MY blood." and walk off.

Fuck 'em.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. My response is, "I would, and gladly, except for the bigots"

Then I explain how I am prohibited from ever donating blood because I've had sex with a man at least once since 1974. That usually prompts anger on my behalf, especially when I point out that straight prostitutes and former drug users are not permanently banned from giving blood.

I have gotten some shocked looks from male co-workers before, usually hidden quickly. If I'm in a nasty mood, I make comment about how the Republican Congress defined "sex" during the Lewinsky "investigations" and subsequent impeachment of President Clinton, and note that the federal regulations make no mention of who does what.

[sabbat hunter]

38. with the new york blood center

among the questions are
1) have you ever been paid for sex even once? have you ever paid FOR sex even once.
if yes then you are DQ'd

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. It might be they've changed that rule

I last tried to give blood 13 years ago, in California. At that time, I believe prostitutes were banned only for six months since they last turned tricks and IV drug users were banned for one year since they last shot up.

[demrabble]

13. Because Instead of Educating People, the Red Cross Would Rather..

Because instead of educating people that we all of us -- gay and straight -- are at risk for HIV, the Red Cross would rather feed the homophobia of Americans.

Instead of educating people on how ALL donated blood is tested for antibodies in order to ensure that no tainted blood is added to the blood supply, the Red Cross would rather "reassure" people that the blood supply is safe because no gay person (with their "tainted blood") is allowed to donate.

[Bill McBlueState]

18. note that the Red Cross are not the bad guys here

From the article:

The Red Cross and other blood-collection organizations have lobbied the FDA to relax the rules, which were established during the AIDS scare in the 1980s, but, so far, the FDA has resisted.

[demrabble]

21. Ooops. Sorry.

I am sorry. I had thought that the Red Cross had rules in placed, but I had not realized that the FDA was the real culprit here.

I guess I should have known that the the same FDA that will not let women have access to birth control would also be living in the dark ages when it came to attitudes about gay people.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. no problem, I had this misunderstanding, too

Until I read the article, I also thought it was Red Cross policy, not the FDA's.

[darmok167]

17. How would the blood center know if a person is gay?

First off, I think this is a dumb law that should be changed. I don't want anyone to think I am condoning this with my questions because I'm not in any way shape or form.

Do they ask? And if so, couldn't the donor just lie about it? It would be my guess that there is already a ton of "gay blood" out there, wouldn't you think?

[cboy4]

20. BINGO

Of course people could and do lie.

If my brother or sisters were in a bad accident and needed blood, do you think for one second I'd tell the screener I was gay?

Of course not.

I'd lie so my brother or sisters could get the blood they needed to help save their lives.

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. There is a questionaire you are required to fill out

And there is a question (last time I tried to give blood and as best as I can remember the wording) that asks, "Are you a man who has had sex with at least one other man during or since 1974?" Your choices are to either lie or tell the truth. If you answer this question truthfully with a "Yes," you are sent home (happened to me at a college blood drive, extremely humiliating.) Your only option to give blood is to lie. Since you must sign a jurat at the bottom that the information you have provided is correct and accurate, you are technically committing perjury if you answer untruthfully.

[cboy4]

29. Tech, I think he understands you have to fill out a questionaire....

I think his point is since you can easily lie, how do you prove whether someone has or has not had sex with another man?

You of course cannot.

And if you're donating to help save the life of a friend or relative, do you really think you're going to worry about whether you're committing perjury?

I would very happily lie. But that's just me.

[darmok167]

31. What, Darmok isn't a feminine sounding name?

Your assumption was correct, though. :)

Edited because I just realized that my forgetful ass has it in my profile that I am male. Either way, I was just kidding. :)

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. Private donations are not regulated

If you are donating to save the life of a friend or relative, your blood will be used only for that friend or relative and the recipient signs a waver, then the donation is technically a private one and not subject to the FDA regulations. Those rules apply only on public donations, ie anonymous donations given as part of a blood drive, to a blood bank, etc.

If you do make a public donation, your options are to answer truthfully and be sent home, or to lie and commit perjury. As adamantly bigoted as the FDA has been on the matter, I would be very surprised if there are no penalties if you are caught lying on the questionaire.

Added And anyway, lying isn't the point. The point is, this rule has no basis in scientific fact and exists solely as an expression of bigotry. I should not be forced to commit perjury to do my duty as a citizen and human being.

[darmok167]

43. But how would they catch a lie?

Would a former partner have to come forward and admit to having sex with the donor? Upon speculation, would they do an investigation?

I'm not disagreeing with you on the law. Your statement, "I should not be forced to commit perjury to do my duty as a citizen and human being." is absolutely correct.

I'm just wondering how a person that did lie, might get caught. The reason I ask is because of the wording of the question. It doesn't ask if the donor is homosexual, it asks if the donor had ever had homosexual sex since 1974. Short of photographic evidence, I just don't see how that could be proven.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. Are you are a "known" homosexual?

A person who is a prominent leader of the gay community, a person who has been open about being a gay activist or a proponent of gay rights? Someone who is a "known" homosexual will likely have their name recognized. If you ever run for public office as an openly gay man or make enemies with moderately powerful people, this is exactly the sort of thing that can get checked (unless you lie and give a false name when you donate, which I think is also a crime as it would require having fake identification. Forgery and/or posession of forged documents in addition to perjury!) And should such crimes be uncovered, you will likely be ruined even if the scandal forces the rules to be changed.

It is a small thing and would probably not be uncovered. But that is not the point. The point is, why must we be required to commit what are probably criminal acts, just to help other people? And ask yourself this: If you do lie to give blood, and you are discovered and prosecuted for "putting the nation's blood supply at risk" and convicted... would it have been worth it?

For me, the answer is no.

[darmok167]

64. All true, and I agree with you, but...

...being openly homosexual does not necessarily mean you are having homosexual sex. Granted, it probably does, but the burden of proof would still lie with the prosecution.

I am a heterosexual. I have two children, so it is pretty clear that I've had sex at least twice, but that is because of the kids and even then it could have been artificial insemination. I just think it would be very difficult to prove a sex act occurred.

But it could prove a major hassle, and I understand why a lot of people would be cautious to test the waters.

In the end, the solution is simple. The law needs to be changed. It's something I would definitely be willing to help change if I knew how. :)

[darmok167]

30. Do they still pay for blood donations?

I knew it would be akin to perjury, I was just saying that there's probably "gay blood" out there anyway because I think people would lie in order to give blood.

If not for the money, then for the point. "I'm going to save people's lives despite your backward ass law." Something like that.

There'd be no way to prove it was a lie would there? I don't know. I'm just sort of thinking out loud here.

[sabbat hunter]

39. no they do not

they ended that practice when the AIDS crisis hit because of the large number of IV drug users who would give blood, get paid so they could get their next hit.

[bullwinkle428]

41. Your name ends up on a "Deferred Donor Directory" - I'm on "the list"

because I received the Hepatitis B vaccination years earlier, and had registered false positives associated with HBV when my donated blood was tested. I received a letter from the Red Cross stating that I could never donate blood again, and this would be a part of my "permanent record", so to speak.

[TechBear_Seattle]

48. I wasn't aware that there was such a "list"

I'm not surprised, though.

Ack. I took part in a HIV vaccine study a few years ago, and was warned that there was a small chance it could cause false positives on future HIV tests (which test for the antibodies, not the virus itself.) It would be very, very bad if my name went down in a permanent file somewhere as someone who gave blood and tested positive.

[bullwinkle428]

76. American Academy of Pediatrics Journal - I knew there were links

regarding the HBV and false positives, so I just did a search. You have scroll down towards the bottom of the article:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/6/e81

[AngryAmish]

27. Their shoes

[eallen]

78. Before each donation, you are interviewed. You are not asked if you're gay...

But you are asked if you've had sex with another man. The interview has a very long list of questions. It takes about five minutes to run through the list, even with trained personel asking them quite rapidly. Some of the questions include:

• Have you spent more than three years in the UK between (certain years)?
  
• Have you been in jail for more than 72 hours in the past n months?
  
• Have you had a smallpox vaccination in the last n months?
  
• Have you been around someone who has had a smallpox vaccination in the last n months?
  
• Have you had sex with another man since (some year)?
  

There are at least 40 other questions. I can't remember all the dates, even though I answered them only Monday. I was excluded for a year after travel to Costa Rica. I suspect the UK has its own blood donation systems, and doesn't exclude its own residents. Costa Rica, too. Both are excluded here in the US, for a certain period of time. In any case, it's about managing risk. The tests aren't perfect. Someone who has recently acquired HIV can have blood that tests negative, yet that also passes on the disease to recipients. One can argue whether they're asking the right questions or using a good procedure to manage risk. But I don't see a reason to question the intent.

[AnnieBW]

96. Their blood is rainbow-colored

instead of red. ;-)

[Bill McBlueState]

19. oh, you can donate blood if you're gay

Just not if you've had gay sex.

:sarcasm:

(This is essentially what the fundies say about gay marriage, so they're probably using it for this one, too.)

[k_jerome]

22. these causes get no play....

you need to focus on impeachment and Iraq. civil rights is NOT a priority.

cheeky to even post.

[Der Blaue Engel]

26. There's no other way to put it: This makes my blood boil

I am a universal donor (O-), and I went through extensive phobia therapy to get rid of my fear of needles so that I could finally donate after years of feeling guilty about it, only to discover that they didn't want my blood. (I am not a male who has had sex with another male, but my partner is, so unless I want to give up sex with him for a year, I'm not wanted.)

The issue that really gets me is that there is an assumption of straight purity. If screening is so unreliable as to warrant an entire sexual orientation being ruled out, then why they hell would I trust any of the blood supply? Am I supposed to believe that no straight people are HIV positive?

Seriously, :wtf:

[cboy4]

33. Silly, silly Der Blaue Engel.....don't you know there are no

HIV positive female hookers, or HIV positive male I.V. drug users or gasp, yes, even HIV positive heterosexuals???

It's only the gays who are dangerous hoes! :eyes:

[sabbat hunter]

40. hookers, IV driug users

are DQ'd, at least by the new york blood center from donating.

[cboy4]

42. How about heterosexuals? I'm sure you know HIV is a heterosexual

disease.

Do we need to start banning heterosexuals?

[Der Blaue Engel]

66. Every other proscription except the one against homosexuals is based on BEHAVIOR

Although, frankly, the mere act of accepting payment for sex can hardly make one more likely to contract HIV than not accepting payment, so I find prostitution iffy as a definitive "behavior." I know some prostitutes who've had less (and safer!) sex than some of my non-prostitute friends.

Sexually active individuals, regardless of gender or orientation, should not be allowed to donate if sexual contact is truly an issue, or at the very least, those who decline to use condoms.

-Gotten a tattoo recently? You can't donate for a year (IIRC).

-Gotten a piercing recently? Same deal.

-Had indiscriminate sex with a different opposite-sex partner every day for 40 years without protection? Come on in!

edited for clarity

[eallen]

81. Nope, they ask questions that preclude that last, also.

About a dozen of the questions are about your sex partners, and what their habits are. If you've had indiscriminate sex with many people recently, I guarantee you won't answer those in a way that allows donation.

:hippie:

[Der Blaue Engel]

100. Really?

That must be new. Sure wasn't on the intake form I filled out a few years ago.

[eallen]

102. So, you've had sex with a different person every day for the past year...

Totaling 365 people, and you know them each well enough to answer confidently that:

* None had ever taken sex for money.

* None had ever had sex with someone whose had sex for money.

* None had ever used IV drugs.

* None had recently visited Africa.

* None had had a smallpox vaccination.

At least where I donate, they ask about a dozen questions about the behavior of either sex partners or people you've had close contact with. I can't remember them all. If you've had a handful of sex partners over the past year, I believe you might know them well enough to answer those questions truthfully, that none had those risk factors. But if you've had hundreds of partners in the past year, or even dozens, I think you would lie if you said you knew that much about them. At best, you could answer "I don't know."

In essence, everyone is excluded who has recently had a sex partner whom they don't know much about.

[Der Blaue Engel]

105. I thought it would be clear that "a different partner every day of the year" was an exaggeration

My point was that the question "do you use condoms every time you have sex?" is totally absent (along with questions about the actual number of partners), and it is the only one that truly matters in this debate. (That is IF the screening of the blood supply for HIV is truly as unreliable as this entire debate would lead one to believe. Which I doubt.)

[eallen]

106. I doubt you have a basis for knowing whether that question matters at all.

I suspect, like many, you're confusing a question relevant to personal risk with a question relevant for population screening. See my post #101.

[Der Blaue Engel]

107. What I am telling you is that people who have sex with hundreds (yes, hundreds!) of partners

and have always used a condom are at much lower risk of contracting HIV than a person who has had 5 partners and never used a condom. That's what I'm talking about.

You are taking the stance that statistically, people with multiple partners are at higher risk, but it is clearly based on behavior, not merely numbers.

Obviously, since the question isn't asked at all, it can hardly matter in this argument anyway. The point at issue is whether the FDA's refusal to join the 21st century is homophobic or not, and it is.

[eallen]

108. You're still discussing personal risk, not population screening.

First, I think you're blowing smoke. I don't think you have any data on the subset of "people who have sex with hundreds of people and always used a condom." If you do, please, point to it. My suspicion, though, is that what you're doing is calculating some risk for acquiring HIV on the basis of per incidence risk, or referring to some such calculation that you read. And that isn't the same thing. The problem is that that group is likely to be a very small fraction of the population that differs in other significant ways, perhaps some that affects their risk profile for HIV. In any case, I seriously doubt there is much data on that subset.

More importantly, though, as long as you see this through the lens of individual risk, you're thinking about it the wrong way around. The question is not what behavior affects an individual's risk for acquiring disease. The question is what behaviors are statistical correlates for effectively filtering the population of donors. Answering those questions require two different kinds of data. Perhaps one way to see this is to think about a different area. Consider these questions:

(1) Does driving a red sports car cause you to drive more recklessly?

(2) Are red sports cars more likely to be in accidents than other kinds of cars?

(3) Should insurance companies charge higher premiums on red sports cars?

The answer to (1) likely is "no." You're the same driver, whether the rental car company has only a red sports car for you, or a blue sedan. Maybe some people act crazy behind the wheel of a sports car. That doesn't mean you do so. The answer to (2) likely is "yes." It's not that driving red sports cars changes how a person drives, but that the people who buy red sports cars are a statistically different group from the people who buy blue sedans. The answer to (3) depends on what constraints we want to set on insurance companies.

Now, switch back to the issue of screening blood donors. You're looking at it much as if questions like the first above are the relevant question: What behaviors increase risk for an individual? They're not relevant. It doesn't matter how well condoms work, to this issue. The problem is that that is the wrong question. Indeed, it is the wrong kind of question. Questions like the second are the relevant question: What behaviors statistically correlate to disease incidence? These are different questions, and while they sometimes have similar answers, they sometimes have different answers even for the same behavior. And unlike the insurance company, where we're happy to spread financial risk around a little to get an increment of fairness, with blood donations, we want to avoid transmitting disease, even if the screening seems unfair to donors.

BTW, it's a certainty regardless of what filters are applied that they will exclude some people who are perfectly safe donors. Unfortunately, they also will allow some people who are carrying a disease. Receiving a blood transfusion is not risk free.

Statistics is a subtle subject. I hope the FDA is able to revise its procedures to something that people see as more fair, that are still effective. Or more so. But I think many people discussing this topic don't understand the statistical issues, and fall into the trap of interpreting statistical filtering as some kind of personal issue. Much like the guy who gets pissed because the insurance company raises his rates when he trades his blue sedan for a red sports car. "But I'm the same driver!" Yep, he is. But that's not the question the insurance company asks.

:hippie:

[cboy4]

109. When people can very easily lie about their sexual history, as at least

two people in this thread admit they do, I think it further supports why this archaic method of screening is ridiculous.

Do you really think this screening method keeps HIV-positive homosexuals AND heterosexuals from donating blood if they intend to?

Do alarms go off at the blood bank when someone with any type of tainted blood begins donating?

Nope, they don't.

Banning gay people is not what's keeping the blood supply "safe."

What's keeping it safe is everyone's (gay & straight) honesty about wanting a safe supply for all of our family and friends.

Gay people ARE donating. It's incredibly naive to think that they're not.

The current screening method is purely symbolic.

The people who composed it are from the days when it was thought you could get AIDS from a toilet seat.

[Der Blaue Engel]

110. I am not professing to be an expert on what all other people do

You seem to be losing my point in your eagerness to impart your knowledge of statistics. (Which I am only taking on faith; you have provided no links to back up your arguments.)

I am, however, a person with multiple sexual partners, some of whom are men who have had sex with men, all of whom practice safe sex. Of these numerous partners, and their numerous partners, I know of three who are HIV positive, and they were infected in the 80s (right around the time of these FDA standards). In the 20 years I have been sexually active, neither I, nor anyone else in this large group of individuals has tested positive for HIV, including those who have been intimate with the three HIV positive individuals. We are tested regularly.

You can call my personal experience with a pool of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of interrelated individuals blowing smoke if you like. But my blood is O-, and no one can have it, and it's clean as a whistle.

For all I know, everything you say may be true from some actuarially significant set of statistics, but the fact remains that using a condom prevents the transmission of HIV, and straight people who do not use a condom are more likely than I am to be passing it around.

[youthere]

51. Apparently only "GAY AIDS" kills.

:eyes:

[newburgh]

32. Profits, er, supplies must be wanting...

Um, what about all those meateaters who've consumed scads of steroids and antibiotics?

"the accuracy of testing has improved substantially"???? Hello, the same tests and non-standards have been in place since day one.

The real problem is that more and more men are comfortable with the fact that they're "gay" or having had sex with other men. Eligibility is falling.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7039/1114

[bicentennial_baby]

35. I've been flamed for this before...

but I don't donate, for this reason. It's just a matter of principle with me :shrug:

But, I keep getting tats and piercings too, so it's essentially a moot point ;)

:hi:

[cboy4]

44. I would NEVER flame anyone as smart as you!

:loveya:

[porphyrian]

36. Cooties!

The FDA has yet to approve the Circle, Circle, Dot, Dot medication.

[cwydro]

37. Lots of stupid rules

I can't give either. They have a question asking if you have been in Europe since 1994 or 5. I said I had (Germany) and was told I couldn't donate until 10 years had passed. Reason given was the mad cow outbreak in ENGLAND. I went back this year to donate and was told that the FDA still has the rule in place and even has extended it indefinitely. Pretty soon there'll be no one left to donate. As far as I know, Germany had no cases of mad cow. So go figure.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Agree With You 100%. Any Healthy Individual Should Be Allowed To Donate Blood.

It is an extremely important service and no one should be excluded from it.

I can understand based on ignorant fear why this was incorporated decades ago, but it is long outdated and should be repealed nationwide immediately.

[Midlodemocrat]

56. ABSOLUTELY!!! And one reason is that there are plenty of

non-healthy heteros, of which I am one and my husband is another who cannot give blood.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. *Receiving* blood is a very important service no-one should be excluded from.

Donating it isn't.

Blood donation should be there purely for the benefit of the recipients, not the donors. It's there to save lives, not to make people feel good about giving blood.

It's perfectly reasonable to exclude people on any grounds, no matter how arbitrary seeming, from *donating* blood, if that results in a better service for the people *receiving* it.

The basis for banning people who answer "yes" to "have you had sex with a man since 1981" from giving blood is not "ignorant fear", it's that the fraction of people who answer "Yes" to that question with AIDS is far higher than the fraction of those who answer "No" with it, and so unless and until AIDS screening procedures improve permitting the former group to donate will increase the rate of AIDS transmission through blood donation. See my posts elsewhere in this thread for a more detailed treatment of the maths behind this.

I'm afraid the reasoning behind the ban is perfectly sound.

It's possibly worth noting that gays benefit from it as much as anyone else, because they, too, are less likely to pick up AIDS from blood donations this way.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Shame On You. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. It always worries me when people who disagree with me put forward such convincing arguments.

Maybe I am wrong after all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. I'm afraid I suspect this isn't entirely based on ignorant prejudice.

The relevant categories here aren't "gay" and "straight", they're "people who would answer yes to the question about having had sex with other men" and "people who would answer no". I suspect Y is between 0.8 and 0.98, and probably about o.9 or 0.95, although I don't know for sure.

Let the first group constitute proportion Y of the population, and the second proportion N = 1 - Y

I think it's probably a reasonable assumption that in the absence of that question the two groups would donate with roughly equal frequency.

Let the frequency of AIDS in group N be A and in group Y be
A x K. K will be greater than 1; probably considerably so.

Let the probability of AIDS screening producing a false negative be p. This will be the case whether the subject is a Y or an N.

At present, the fraction of donated blood containing AIDS will be Ap.

If the question were removed, the fraction would be

(Y + NK)Ap

This is an increase in risk of 1 + N(k-1).

If we take e.g. N = 0.05, K = 3 (both of which are probably fairly low estimates, although it's not inconceivable they're overestimates) then that is 1.1, or a 10% extra chance of catching AIDS from a blood donation, and I suspect that's an underestimate.

I don't know how high the current chance of that is - if it's very low indeed then increasing it by 10% might not matter too much - 10% of a very small number indeed is very small indeed - but it's still a non-trivial cost.



In the other side of the scales are two issues - gay rights and shortage of blood.

I don't think blood donation is a fundamental right that it is very serious to violate - it should be purely there for the benefit of the recipient, not the donor. If gay people were being denied blood *transfusions* then that would be serious. It's undeniably humiliating and offensive, but it's not inflicting a substantive harm on anyone, whereas catching AIDS is. Being unable to receive a blood transfusion due to shortage of blood *is* a substantive harm, but as the value N is probably low, it's not one that removing the question would do much to alleviate.

I haven't looked up the actual values, but fundamentally I think that the things that need to be weighed against one another are N(K-1)Ap - the number of increased AIDS cases - versus the amount of extra good that having N/Y extra amount of blood to donate would do. And I don't know that the former is low enough to justify it (although equally I don't know that it isn't).

[cboy4]

53. It's being based on science and testing methods that are 30 years old,

which includes the misnomer that HIV-AIDS is overwhelmingly a gay disease.

Studies show this is not true.

Modern science nullifies your 1980's era mathematical argument.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. Wrong comparison, I think.

Whether or not HIV-AIDs is "overwhelmingly a gay disease" depends on the ratio of gay people with HIV to straight people with HIV


Whether or not being gay (or admitting to being gay, to be precise) makes one more of a risk factor when donating blood depends on the ratio of the fraction of gay people with HIV to the fraction of straight people with HIV.


The two are very different claims. The fraction of Americans with HIV who are gay is, as you say, relatively low, because there are far fewer gay than straight Americans. But the fraction of gays with HIV is far higher than the fraction of straights with HIV.

Wikipedia suggests that 48% of AIDS cases were tracked back to "male-male contact, 7% to "male-male contact and drug use", 16% to "male-female contact", 27% to "male-female contact and drug use" and 2% to other causes.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret those in terms of prevalence of AIDS among people who would answer "yes" and "no" to "have you ever had sex with a man", but they appear to imply that there are roughly equal *numbers* of each, possibly even slightly more of the former.

That, given how few people would answer "Yes", means that the prevalence of AIDS among the former is not much less than 10 times higher than among the latter, and possibly more so.

The fact that the absolute numbers are comparable - as you say, AIDS isn't "a gay disease" is neither here nor there.

[Der Blaue Engel]

67. Here's a question for you

If black people are more likely as a group to contract HIV (this is merely a hypothetical; I have no idea if it's true), should we then disallow black donors as well?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. Potentially yes.

But doing so would have a much higher cost in terms of reducing the potential pool of blood donors, so the difference in prevalence of HIV before you'd do that would have to be considerably more than for disqualifying a smaller group.

[youthere]

52. I had no idea..

You know, I always thought I was fairly up-to-date with the issues of our day, and I had NO IDEA that gay men were banned from donating blood.
:wow:

[spacelady]

54. Can't they just test the blood before someone donates?

What am I missing here?

[cboy4]

60. I kinda think that would turn off too many potential donors by having

to get pricked, wait for however long it took to get a test result, and then proceed with the donation.

The bottom line is blood IS TESTED before it's administered to anyone who needs it.

What Happens to Every Blood Donation?

While the blood supply is safer than ever, the Red Cross has continued to make important advances in testing and processing.
Assuring the safety of the blood supply is a high-tech process requiring at least nine specific tests; proper processing, labeling, and storage; and vigilant quality control.

Routine donations are now tested for HIV and hepatitis C through nucleic acid testing (NAT), an investigational test that may reduce the "window period" — the time between a virus infecting the blood and the body forming antibodies that can be detected.


http://www.redcross.org/general/0,1082,0_555_239,00.html

[eallen]

80. There is a window after exposure when one is infectious but doesn't test positive.

They would prefer not to give another disease to patients already sick enough to require transfusion. The concern isn't just HIV, by the way. The risk of infection through blood transfusion is very real, despite some comments here otherwise.

:hippie:

[mark414]

55. i didn't even know they still tried to pull that shit

i just donated some plasma last week and saw that on there...crazy shit, hope they get rid of it soon

[RevolutionStartsNow]

58. This is sad

My son knows Ronnie well, he is openly gay (and the president of his high school class) and seems like a nice kid who volunteers a lot of his time to different causes. My son knows him because he comes to his afterschool program and teaches dance; he's a great dancer and choreographer.

It does give me the opportunity to discuss homophobia and hate with my son, who is at that age (11) where boys routinely use "gay" as an insult.

And while the hate mail Ronnie has received is outrageous, I applaud his school for seeming to stick behind him and appeal to legislators to get the FDA rules changed.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

59. K&R... here's a 5th vote and striking gif...

[mikelgb]

62. I don't let that stop me from donating

I just lie

[cboy4]

68. I know! That's my point. There is nothing to prevent people

from lying, so what the hell is the point of the restriction?

[slj0101]

63. Wouldn't want anyone to catch The Gay, would you?

Geez, I think it's time to lift the restriction, don't you think?

[IronLionZion]

65. I sure hope blood gets tested before given to anyone

so if there's nothing wrong with the blood, then who cares who it came from. Not to mention all those straight women and men who are HIV+.

[cboy4]

70. It is tested:

http://www.redcross.org/general/0,1082,0_555_239,00.html

What Happens to Every Blood Donation?

While the blood supply is safer than ever, the Red Cross has continued to make important advances in testing and processing.
Assuring the safety of the blood supply is a high-tech process requiring at least nine specific tests; proper processing, labeling, and storage; and vigilant quality control.

Routine donations are now tested for HIV and hepatitis C through nucleic acid testing (NAT), an investigational test that may reduce the "window period" — the time between a virus infecting the blood and the body forming antibodies that can be detected.

[eallen]

79. "Reduce" not eliminate. People need to realize the tests aren't perfect.

[cboy4]

82. And so what are you saying? That because tests are not perfect,

gay people should not be allowed to donate blood?

Sorry, but you sorta wrote an incomplete thought, and I can't figure out you point.

[eallen]

84. I'm saying the interview screening is important & can't be eliminated.

The question then is identifying risk factors for various diseases. The interview asks a lot of questions about many different behaviors. Certain tours of military service can exclude you from donating. Statistically, in the US, men who have sex with other men are at much greater risk of HIV infection. That's not a moral statement, though many will try to read it that way, both right-wing wackos, and some people reacting against that. It's simply a statistical fact, and the blood banks are doing risk management. They're not making a political statement. When you leave without donating, as I have a couple of times, no one watching knows whether it is because you've had sex with another man, have been around someone who was recently vaccinated for smallpox, or recently returned from a trip to certain areas abroad.

:hippie:

[cboy4]

85. Why should a male who has had safer sex (using a condom) with

another male be eliminated, while a straight male who does not use protection is allowed to donate?

That makes sense to you?

You don't think straight people can get HIV by having vaginal sex?

[eallen]

88. Yeah, it does make sense. Here's why...

The goal isn't to somehow optimize the questionaire to everyone who might want to donate, which if nothing else, would require it getting much, much longer than it already is. The goal is to effectively screen. If you've been to certain countries, they don't ask where in those countries, and then compare against a map of where malaria is active. They don't even ask if you were in the boonies or spent your entire time in an air-conditioned office. They just exclude you. Men who have had sex with other men, which includes bisexuals and perhaps even some men who are primarily straight, likely are less than 5% of the US population, but account for 50% of HIV infection. That is a significant statistical marker, which makes it an effective screen. There are about a dozen questions related to sexual partners that are relevant to straight men and to women. It's not as if they get a pass, just for not being a man who has had sex with other men.

You bring up condom usage. But I don't know that using a condom is correlated with lesser incidence of disease. Do you? As I remember, once being a young man, I used condoms when I was dating multiple women. Using condoms was a smart thing to do, as an individual engaging in riskier behavior. But that doesn't make it a statistical marker for lower risk vis-a-vis the population as a whole. Perhaps the opposite. Those are different questions, and people not accustomed to thinking statistically often confuse them. It puzzles them that using condoms might be both statistically prudent and statistically a marker of risk.

One tactic, instead of asking all those questions about the behavior of your sex partners, might be to only take blood from people who have either been celibate or been in a monogamous relationship for n years. But then people who are serially monogamous or who have open relationships would bitch about discrimination. Maybe it's time to change the questionaire. Some of the questions seem pretty silly to me, though I might think differently if I had the relevant statistics at hand. In any case, those complaining will get nowhere unless they understand the reason for the screening, and acknowledge that statistical issues aren't moral issues.

:hippie:

[cboy4]

92. Where are you getting the 5% - 50% statistics? I always prefer to

see links when we're discussing discriminatory issues such as this.

And how about giving gay people the benefit of the doubt?

If I was HIV positive, I wouldn't donate blood. Why would I want to infect someone else?

I have no reason to believe others don't feel the same way.

[eallen]

95. There is no moral judgment being made where "benefit of doubt" is relevant.

That confuses risk management and screening, with making moral judgments about individuals. Again, to reiterate, the purpose of the interview is to screen people who might carry various infectious vectors who are not yet diagnosed. Hopefully, no one who knows they have an infectious disease is going to volunteer to give blood. The lab tests are mostly effective, but not entirely, because many infectious vectors require some time before an antigen test gives a positive reading. And yeah, blood is infectious during that time. For a blood borne disease, tranfusing a pint from one person to another is just about the perfect means of infection. It's not like sex, where the risk per incident is low. Or even a needle stick. A transfusion almost guarantees infection if the source blood is infected, by loading the recipient with a pound of living, infected tissue.

The fact that 51% of HIV incidence comprises men who have had sex with other men comes from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm

This is for those diagnosed in 2004. 70% of males diagnosed had sex with another man, and men account for 73% of those diagnosed. In earlier years, both of those fractions were higher. I'll admit the other number is less certain, but around 10% is the usual estimate for the number of men who are homosexual or bisexual, or around 5% of the population as a whole.

:hippie:

[Ms. Toad]

98. A tad bit of a reality check...

<<If you've been to certain countries, they don't ask where in those countries, and then compare against a map of where malaria is active. They don't even ask if you were in the boonies or spent your entire time in an air-conditioned office. They just exclude you.>>

Not true. This question applied to me when I donated last June. I identified a malarial country. They asked where in the country I had been, compared it to a map, and asked additional questions regarding whether the visit was in urban or rural areas. I was allowed to donate because the particular geographic area and the non-rural setting eliminated (to their satisfaction) the malaria risk.

<<But I don't know that using a condom is correlated with lesser incidence of disease. Do you?>>

Let me guess. You went through high school after the abstinence only wave came through. That is the same garbage my daughter was taught - condoms make no difference, and all homosexual sex is inherently risky (as is all sexual activity outside of marriage). The school got an earful.

I do agree with your last comment regarding celibacy or monogamy. It is a much more appropriate measure of risk than the gender of your partner, because either celibacy and/or monogamy for a year before donation virtually guarantees that if you had been exposed you would test positive at the time of donation and the donation would not make it into the bloodstream.

[eallen]

101. I didn't say "condoms make no difference." Just the opposite...

If you read what I wrote, you'll see I recommended condoms. You're missing a very important statistical difference. Both of the following statements could be true:

(1) Condoms are an effective prophylactic, and reduce the risk of acquiring STDs.

(2) People who use condoms are a higher-risk group for carrying STDs.

I don't know that (2) is the case. But I also don't know that is isn't. What I do know is that it compatible with (1), and that (2) not (1) is the relevant issue in using a question about condom use (or other safe sex practices) as a screening tool. Your guess about me is completely wrong. I came of age about the time Nixon resigned. Some of my career, I've taught statistical methods to engineers. I understand how statistical issues are confusing, and how people mistakenly think that (1) would be relevant to the issue of blood screening. It isn't. (1) is simply and totally irrelevant to this issue. And that was the point I was making. (2) is relevant. And (1) doesn't tell you about (2).

Obviously, (1) is relevant in deciding whether to use condoms or not. That is a different question! So yes, tell people to use condoms. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the effectiveness of condoms as a prophylactic has anything to do with the issue under discussion. It doesn't. I suspect the difficulty of understanding what is statistically relevant to this issue, and mistaking that for what is relevant to personal decisions, or worse, trying to treat it as a moral judgment, is a large part of what this issue generates such heat.

:hippie:

[Ms. Toad]

103. The only studies I find which support argument (2)

are conducted/promoted by the same folks who wrote my daughter's abstinence only curriculum (or by others with similar biases). (National Catholic Families Association, Physicians for Life, etc. are two I can quickly identify) (In fact some of these studies were quoted in the curriculum, along with other dozens of other factually incorrect assertions in the first page of the materials.) If the studies are not biased by the moral judgment of individuals carrying them out, I would expect to find similar studies from neutral and/or sex positive organizations. I did not find any when I did research to correct my daughter's study materials, and I did not find any when I did a quick repeat of the research just now.

I did find one study which has found that individuals who regularly use condoms accurately assess their risk for STDs at a rate approximately double that of those who do not use condoms. Whether of not they are at higher risk, a condom user who is donating based on his or her assessment of risk is (according to this study) more likely to accurately have assessed whether s/he is at risk - making acceptance of a donation by that individual less risky than accepting a donation from a similarly situated individual who does not use condoms because the latter is more likely to believe it is safe to donate when it is not.

That said, while I have not found non morally biased support for the premise that people who use condoms are a higher risk group for carrying STDs, I do agree that questions about condom use are not accurate predictors for whether someone is infected with and/or carrying an STD. Risky sexual activity (e.g. multiple partners (other than closed relationship multiples), sexual activity with infected individuals) made safer by condom use is still not adequate protection for the blood supply. As I suggested, questions regarding monogamy and/or celibacy for a period (a year is sufficient) followed by a negative test (either as part of the donation process or prior to the donation process) would be as safe as the current question (sex with a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1981), and would open the process to many needed donors.

Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation - and regardless of the gender of the partner - and regardless of condom/barrier use, who has engaged in risky behavior recently enough that s/he would not have converted to seropositive should not be donating blood.

[eallen]

104. I'm not surprised those pushing abstinence would use that error in reverse.

Even if it is the case that people who use condoms, as a group, carry STDs at the same rate or higher than the rest of the population, that says nothing about the effectiveness of condoms. Of course, if the wingnuts can come up with such a statistic, perhaps by pulling it out of thin air, or misquoting a similar statistic, it makes for great propaganda against condoms. But that's all it is: propaganda.

The problem is that these kind of statistical confusions are easy. Sometimes, honest people make them by mistake. Sometimes, clever propagandists make them on purpose. Sometimes, ignorant propagandists make them by mistake.

Again, I have no idea whether there is or isn't such a correlation. I'm pointing out that subtly different statistics can go in opposite directions, and it is easy to get confused about which are relevant to particular questions.

:hippie:

[Ms. Toad]

129. And why couldn't their rate be lower?

If the effectiveness of condoms at preventing transmission of disease outweighs any increase (if there is an increase) in sexual activity with infected partners (if condom users engage in sexual activity with more infected partners than non-condom users), the rate would be lower - and even discounting the effectiveness, I haven't seen any trustworthy studies indicating that the two premises are true :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. If they're non-trivially imperfect then possibly not.

I don't know the numbers, but see my post 50 for an analysis of how to interpret them.

I'm willing to trade quite a lot of people being unjustly banned from donating blood for arbitrary reasons for one person not being infected with AIDS, unless you get to a situation where people are dying from lack of donated blood, which I believe is not currently the case in America.

[cboy4]

93. It's really unfortunate that you're making HIV out to be such a gay

disease.

Because, as I'm sure you know, the HIV rate among African Americans and other blacks is staggering.

And Africans, as a whole, are not banned from donating blood.

So the current system is terribly dated and imperfect.

This is not 1981 anymore.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. See my posts 87 and 89

My belief is that HIV is more prevalent in African-Americans than whites, but that the ratio of prevalences is significantly less than that between gays and straights (or, to be precise, between "yesses" and "nos" answering that question).

Also, the fact that there are more African-Americans than people who will admit to having had sex with another man - about 14% of the population, as opposed to far fewer (2%-10%, depending on who you ask, I think, with most, and especially most reliable, answers being much nearer the lower end of that) means that the cost of excluding them from giving blood is far higher. And the fact that some areas are homogenously black means that they'd need blood transported in or some such.

But my view is that blood donation is there purely for the benefit of the recipients, not the donors. I would have no qualms about excluding someone from donating on grounds of race, sex, religion, political affiliation or anything else if that was the best way to assure a sufficiently large supply of untainted blood. As and when people start discriminating between *recipients*; then I'll have a problem. Giving blood is not a right.

[cboy4]

99. Well, I find your association between gay people and tainted blood

really quite offensive.

You really need to remind yourself this is no longer 1977.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

119. If you regard "offensive" as a substitute for "untrue" you're going to make mistakes.

The correlation between homosexuality and AIDS ("tainted blood" is a phrase I didn't, and wouldn't ever, use) is not "my" association, it's an association that exists that I am pointing out.

If you regard the fact that it offends you as relevant to whether it's true or not then you're not going to be able to contribute meaningfully to any discussion related to it.

I am fully aware that it is no longer 1977. It is, however, still the case that the proportion of gays (or, more relevantly, the proportion of peope who will answer "yes" to the question "have you had sex with another man since 1981" who have AIDS is considerably higher than the proportion of straight people/people who will answer no who do.

Taking all the offence you like won't change that, I'm afraid.

[Zhade]

69. K/R

Homophobia, basically.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. If they are going to have that policy it should apply to straight people who engage in sodomy also

Granted I think it is obsolete because testing is pretty reliable. But there seems to be some kind of myth that only gay people engage in sodomy.

[cboy4]

77. I appreciate what you're saying, but hopefully you realize that

straight people do acquire HIV through vaginal sex.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. Possibly, but I suspect not.

Is there any evidence that a higher proportion of straight people who engage in sodomy have HIV than of those straight people who don't?

If not, there's no point in asking that question.

[Der Blaue Engel]

111. The questionnaire doesn't ask about sodomy

(by which I assume you mean anal penetration; sodomy can actually refer to anything that is not penis-to-vagina penetrative intercourse). It merely says "male who has had sex with a male since 1977" (I forget the exact year, but it is in the 70s), even once. There are plenty of gay people who do not engage in anal penetration, and, as you point out, plenty of straight people who do.

My argument above in the thread (perhaps not stated brilliantly, since I am no statistician) is that it can be nothing more than homophobia to refuse the blood of a man who has had any kind of sexual contact with another man (even if it was a handjob 30 years ago, and he has never had sex again in his life!) and to welcome all heterosexual donors who aren't IV drug users or prostitutes. There is no way to spin this as anything but homophobia. (I realize you're not trying to; I'm just frustrated with having to repeat myself.)

[eallen]

126. Do you have ANY reason to think that asking about sodomy would be an effective screen?

Let me be clear that that is a very different issue from asking whether sodomy is a risky behavior. The issue is: if you ask people whether they have committed sodomy, does that identify a subset of the population that has a much higher incidence of disease than the population at large? And is it more specific for that than other questions? I don't know the answers to those two questions. I've never seen any relevant data. But I don't think you know the answers to those questions either. And unless you do, you have no basis -- nada, zip, none -- for suggesting that that would be a more effective filter. And let me be very clear that what you know about risky behavior does not straightforwardly translate into answers to those questions. The question of what creates personal risk and what creates a good population filter are not synonymous. If you keep speaking as if they were -- which so far you have, repeatedly -- people who know statistics are going to keep pointing out that they're not.

:hippie:

[Der Blaue Engel]

128. Where did I say anything about sodomy being an effective screen?

I am so absolutely not talking about screening based on specific behaviors despite your repeated instistance that my anecdotal examples of behavior are meant to be some kind of scientific claim that these categories should or would make better "filters." I am talking about homophobic bias, plain and simple.

To bar ALL HOMOSEXUALS from ever giving blood while giving ALL HETEROSEXUALS a pass (with the exception of a few risk categories such as IV drug use and paying for sex) is homophobic. Jump up and down and scream STATISTICS! FILTERS! (without providing ANY links to validate your claims) all you like. It's still homophobic (not to mention being a USELESS AND INEFFECTIVE FILTER) to have such a blanket policy, and there are many people who agree with me, including the Red Cross.

You're not going to win an argument with me by continuing to treat me like an uneducated twit. Nothing that you say about population filters is going to change my mind about this policy. It is wrong. It is hateful. It is harming people.

For those who agree with me, here's a petition to stop this nonsense: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/395725675?ltl=1169072536

[HoneyBee]

114. I wholly disagree. It should apply to neither.

Donating blood is vitally important. Far too important to discriminate against anyone for any reason other than KNOWN instances where the blood is unusable.

Supplies are low, especially given our current "engagements" of war and the ridiculous amount of troops being horribly wounded. People need to donate and the FDA needs to lift these antiquated rules.

All eligible and willing donors should be able help. It saves lives.

[Hippo_Tron]

131. As I said that is IF they are going to have the policy

I think that modern testing methods make the policy obsolete and thus they should lift it all together. Plus I'm too afraid of needles to give blood so I'm not one to say who should and shouldn't.

[Rex]

83. Well you see, ahem, gay blood cells would intermingle with straight

blood cells thereby allowing 'normal people' the ability to pick a really good wine and stop buying those trashy wine-in-a-box brands sold in grocery stores. 'Normal people' might also develop a keen sense of humor and stop shopping at Old Navy.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. :P

[dsc]

86. I lie when I give blood

I haven't had sex in several years and know for a fact I don't have HIV. I still feel bad about lying but I have a rare blood type and am bugged till I give. On edit I could see asking when was your last AIDs test and did you have sex with a man after that date.

[LaBanty]

112. because we don't want your gay genes...

Contaminating our non-gay bodies. Gay-to-straight transfusions lead to presumed heterosexuals trolling online forums looking for underage same-sex relationships. It also causes spontaneous combustion when entering churches.

Gay people are evil, and we don't want their blood. Their blood is pink and blue, and all kinds of rainbow colors that clash with red.

/no sarcasm needed

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. Is there a significantly higher incidence of HIV in gay man when compared to the general population?

If not, there is no need to exclude their blood.

[eallen]

121. Yes. Men who have sex with other men account for 51% of new HIV cases.

That's as of 2004, according to the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm

Obviously, being straight doesn't exempt anyone from acquiring HIV. It's a disease, not a magical curse from an imagined god. One's personal risk is determined by behavior and circumstance, not sexual orientation. Going further, I don't see those behaviors as morally wrong. Merely as risky. There is a strong tendency in this society to condemn X kind of behavior as "wrong" because it carries risk. Especially if X is something sexual, but not only that. I think that tendency is silly. There is far more to life than merely avoiding risk, and I feel sorry for anyone who has lived their life entirely free of avoidable risk.

That doesn't mean someone designing a filtering process should ignore relevant statistical correlates.

:hippie:

[HoneyBee]

118. Hugely important point you made, and thank you for emphasizing

It's NOT the American Red Cross or other blood collection centers who are responsible for this antiquated guideline. It's the FDA. And the collection centers have tried, repeatedly and unsuccessfully to change this:

FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of the Nation's blood supply. While a blood supply with zero risk of transmitting infectious disease may not be possible, there are several measures taken by FDA to protect and enhance the safety of blood products.

http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/bldfaq.htm#gm

[TZ]

120. Screening process

All blood is screened now for potential pathogens. HIV is really easy to screen for. In fact it can now be done in less than 30 minutes. If these tests can't pick it up, its probably not infectious even if present. Heterosexuals are just as likely to have HIV or other STD's anyway. The rule is a relic of the 80's.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. You're wrong about the second, and I think but am not certain about the first too.

I don't think HIV screening is as reliable as you make it out to be, although I'm not an expert on the subject.

But it certainly is not the case that heterosexuals are as likely to have HIV as gays. The *numbers* of heterosexuals and gays with HIV are very roughly comparable, but because there are so many more heterosexuals the fraction is far, far lower.

[TZ]

127. testing

The new quicker tests aren't as reliable. But the testing they do on a normal basis -ELISA- is pretty reliable when done correctly (I actually do this assay for other things...)

[NMMNG]

133. Because people are bigoted idiots

:shrug:

[krispos42]

135. You might turn a fundie or freeper gay with your blood-borne lifestyle choice

Remember, it's not nature, it's a choice! And those that have had God Himself PERSONALLY tell them they are going to Heaven don't want to screw it up by having your 'lifestyle choice' contaminate their bloodstream. I mean, they might start looking at the guys on their favorite sports team in a different manner and simply RUIN their chances of getting through the Pearly Gates!

And, gosh, what happens when the devout righties go to church for their weekly baptism? I mean, some people become born again evey week and want to be baptized. I guess they are the born-again-and-again-and-again crowd. I mean, the holy water might dissolve the homosexual blood in their veins and cause unholiness to happen!

Look at Ted Haggert! Just by sharing a crystal meth pipe with a homosexual, enough of the homosexual's 'lifestyle choice' got into Haggert from the saliva on the pipe that Haggert began wanting to start being the catcher instead of the pitcher!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

And just to be completely clear...

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: