Blood donation ban for men who have slept with men

Remove all ads!

Statistically, the discrimination makes sense because, despite rising rates in the heterosexual non-drug using community, it is still vastly more common in the homosexual community. The reason for the total ban is because it's so much simpler than saying 'all men who have had sex with other men within the last X years, unless it was done in country Y, in which case it's Y2 years, or country L (L2 years), etc.' A total ban is simpler, and at this point I'm betting the vast majority of the people who will answer 'yes' to the question have had male-male sex since the outbreak.

It makes just as much sense as discriminating against drug users (for the same reason). As for the life-long ban, it's simple. One, HIV is currently incurrable, which means you'll always be tainted, there's no expiration on the disease. Two, with the current tendency for people to ignore the disease, or even intentionally spread it, simply banning individuals every time they come up isn't likely to be effective. I imagine there are other diseases they have similar policies for (given known exposure instead of odds of exposure), such as cerebral malaria.

This is a case where discrimination is not only acceptable by those who think about it rationally, it is probably the right course. Also, please remember that (at least here in the US) blood donations are taken through private organizations like the Red Cross, who may get a dirty name for their activity, but I don't think can be held to any legal standard on the issue.

 

If the statistics show that the target group has a higher rate of HIV infection, then the ban is valid. Period. The people collecting the blood have a responsibility to the patients who eventually get the blood. That responsibility is far greater than their responsibility to pander to an annoying minority.

If the stats don't validate this, then you're right, it's not fair. But I'm of the position that the stats are likely to validate the ban.

 

These numbers need to be placed in the proper perspective. Sure, 53% of new cases of HIV involved male to male sexual contact (45% of new HIV cases were from black men -- most of whom weren't gay -- but there's no real reason to go there right now). This is slightly misleading, as it misrepresents the actual rate of infection. 53% of HIV cases amounts to about 21,000 actual cases. In surveys that ask for details about sexual experiences rather that orientation (only about 4% of men identify themselves as homosexual), it has been found that 14% of Men have had "extensive" or "more than incidental" homosexual experience. Extrapolated against the number of Men in the USA, that means that more than 21 million males have had gay sex on more than one occasion at some point in their lives. Compared to 21 million, 21,000 is actually pretty insubstantial. Further, most of the blood we collect comes from regular donors, and each infected donor is a one time expense. The expense of disposing of tainted blood is most assuredly not the reason for the ban.

The ban is in place because, back when it was implemented, our inability to properly test for HIV made it necessary. It had nothing to do with disposing of tainted blood, but instead with the massive number of hemophiliacs and others who needed frequent transfusions that were getting infected with HIV, and the fact that a disproportionate number of homosexuals had the virus, which also does a lot to explain why the transmission rate is still high even today.

All those gay men who developed HIV in bath-houses or the YMCA are, last I checked, still gay and, unfortunately, a great many of them are still sexually active. The US was able to trace the HIV epidemic back to a very mobile and very promiscuous French airline steward who frequented bath-houses, the YMCA, and other places where the more promiscuous members of the gay community met for anonymous sex with great regularity. While the slightly greater ease of transmission via anal sex was part of the picture, the promiscuity so prevalent within the gay community at the dawn of the AIDS epidemic was an even larger one.

 

I could see a new review of this ban analyzing it on a cost-benefit basis based on new facts, if one hasn't been done recently, but that's it. Considering current statistics, the accuracy of current tests, the costs of testing, and the costs of disposal all makes sense.

 

They ban all sorts of people in the US as well. Basically, anyone who is seen as having a higher than normal chance of having any blood bourne illness is banned. As for HIV, not only are homosexual men banned, but you're also banned for life if you're straight and have ever had sex with a prostitute. (And it goes without saying that prostitutes are banned for life.)

The US laws are really strict also in terms of where you've been. While I don't think it results in a life-time ban, you won't be able to give blood for a number of years if you've visited the UK and eaten beef (because of mad cow disease). You also cannot give for a period of time if you've visited many African nations (malaria) and even had a tatoo (although in this case I believe the fear is hepatitis transmission, not AIDS).

The list goes on and on. Part of the problem seems to be that it's a lot easier to get on the list than it is to get off the list. I'm sure that many of these groups can be removed. (While it may have been a problem at one time, it would appear that the UK tests for mad cow disease as much as they do in the US, for example.)

 

I certainly hope this isn't true in your country as it certainly isn't in mine. any person wanting to donate blood are initialy asked a series of questions, several ofcourse involve ones sexlife. if you have had unprotected sex prior to the test and it is less than six weeks ago you are discarded, as HIV cannot be dtected until after six weeks, if not then a small sample is initialy taken to screen for HIV and other deseases.

when actually donating blood you are not allowed to donate blood if you have had unprotected sex with a stranger and haven't been tested for HIV since that. other cases where you will not get allowed to donate blood is after recieving piercings, having travelled to certain countries or being on certain medication, just to name a few.

That said gay people who don't have unprotected sex with strangers should be as welcomed as any other.

 

You're right. I don't believe a new review has been done in the past 10 years. I Think that's what bugs me most. If a current review showed that it was still more cost effective to ban men who've had intercourse with men (I won't say homosexual because I know a lot of straight men who've experimented) then that's fine. I don't disagree that the blood service needs to be very aware of costs, I'm a regular doner and and ex nurse so I'm fine with that! However, the lack of the recent review means that they are basing the ban on figures from when the HIV problem was at it's height really, when people were still ignorant on the ways to prevent the spread.
Safe sex if a big thing now, in fact, I go to gay clubs a lot and they give out free condoms, put bowls of them in the toilets and are really pushing good sexual health.

I wrote the original post when I was still mad and hadn't thought about using a rational argument. Sorry if I wound anyone up!

 

It might have been a rational consideration in the past, when little was known of the disease, but definitely not now. In my opinion, it should've been changed a long time ago. I can't think of any legitimate defense that can be made to keep the ban nowadays.

 

You don't buy into the money saving one?

 

If a man who has been sexually active with another man can prove that he is healthy (via statement from medical professional, following testing) there is no reason why he should not be able to donate blood.

 

Halasz, that does make sense. Since samples are tested anyway, it's not like someone lying is going to sneak in a tainted sample, and the number of people who would go through that much effort to lie about it are bound to be small. The only caveat I'd have is that the patient can't have had unprotected sex since the testing was done. Since most blood donations around here seem to be done with plenty of prior notice (most places regularly schedule them, every 6 months or so), this wouldn't be a problem. It does put the burden of testing on the donor and I'm not sure how likely that is to get a response, but it doesn't take much to institute the change.

 

Now it is time to take this thread and spin it in a different direction

Is the giving of blood a right? I'm guessing that since there is a petition that there are men who have had sex with other men who are upset that they can't give blood. I'm curious if they actually want to give blood or if they consider this a form of discrimination. If they do, I can see why they would be upset as I'm a big fan of the "slippery slope" arguments.

I'm guessing the phrasing of the ban prevents it from being discriminatory as it technically applies to heterosexuals also (the lawyers may have outdone themselves this time).

Does the Red Cross or whatever the local blood collection agency is have a responsibility to collect everyone's blood or can they (or should they) be selective?

 

They should definitely be selective... you don't want bad blood, which is the whole point of not allowing certain people who are more likely to have tainted blood from donating. It is not a 'right' to donate blood... it is just a good thing to do.

 

I don't see the giving of blood as a right at all. First off, it's giving, not taking, and no one has the right to give anything but their opinions, and even that can be restricted. You don't have the right to give me money, you have the privelidge, if I permit it (which I would ). Likewise with blood donations. If blood collection is done by the government, and not an independant group (like the Red Cross), things may get a little more complicated, but even then I don't see any right to give anything.

 

I certainly hope they are selective! I never had, nor do I ever anticipate ever needing a blood transfusion. But heck, maybe one day I'll get into a car accident or something and I'll need one. I would like to think that the Red Cross made an effort to ensure that the blood I receive is not tainted in any way. While treatment for AIDS has come a long way, it is still a potentially fatal disease. (I recently had a discussion with a doctor, and I was surprised to learn that relatively few HIV positive people develop full blown AIDS - provided they are receiving treatment of course - and therefore not many people die from AIDS anymore.) There are other blood-borne disease that can be passed in a transfusion as well, so I do think screening and selectivity is not only appropriate but necessary.

As for giving blood being a right, I'm kind of with NOG here. You're volunteering to give blood - it's not like you NEED to give blood. I could only see it as being a violation of rights if it were reversed i.e., I think you have a right to RECEIVE blood if you need it and it's available. I don't think you could deny someone a blood transfusion for being HIV positive.

 

I just find the selectiveness to be outdated. We need more blood doners, all blood needs to be screened whoever it is from that you need may need to toss a few more samples from homosexuals away than from others shouldn't matter. The net result would still be more blood. I think the argument is like this, if you look at the people here the people arguing against everyones oppurtunity to donate are roughly the same people arguing against gay marriage. Anyone see a correlation? I would be quite pissed if I wanted to help out and give blood and someone said I couldn't because I liked to have sex with brunettes. Either way if someone is dead set towards giving blood they could just lie so the screening needs to be there no matter what and even a person who have never had sex could have some blood disease. I think this is a left over from the paranoid 80s.

 

The screening is there for everyone, but the issue is how many samples they have to screen and then throw away (figuratively). Yes, there's a need for blood, and moreso now than there has been in the recent past, but there's also a need for more money, which simply isn't there at the moment. The groups that do this have to decide how they can most effectively use the resources at their disposal, and if that means limiting testing to the candidates more likely to be clean, then so be it.

Again, if a review hasn't been done recently, and there's evidence the situation has changed, then someone needs to free up the moeny to do this, as they could be loosing valuable blood. If there isn't any evidence the situation (frequency of HIV positive tests among men sleeping with men) has improved, or if a new review comes to the same conclusion, then I have no problem with the rule standing.

Joacqin, the insinuation that this is a homophobic response is simply inaccurate. There were practical reasons to produce the ban, and from what I know of the situation today, those reasons still stand. I'll be the first to say I'm no expert, so I'm also saying a new review may be quite warranted, but I'm not about to throw out a rule like this just to be PC.

 

Before you give blood, they take a few drops from your finger and give it a basic test to show if there is anything there to worry about (although this test would never show WHAT is wrong). They also take a sample from your donation to test anyway AFAIK so what's the problem?

 

Actually they don't test the actual donation. they take the pretest as you described, where they among other things test you for HIV.
but the actual donation is not tested and even if it was there is still a risk for HIV to get transmitted with it, if you lied about your sexual activities (since it takes a minimum of 6weeks from infection, for HIV to be detectable in a blood sample).