Blood donation ban for men who have slept with men

Remove all ads!

Hmm...last time I gave blood, they said that part of it was going for testing and that this happend all the time!

 

UK standards for blood testing sample each pack as well as the pre-test. In cases where they have to be careful with a patient sometimes it will get an extra test just before transfusions as well.

 

At this time, the test is a little more accurate than that. 96% (perhaps higher) of all infected individuals will test positive within 2 to 12 weeks, with the average being 25 days.

 

I agree with Silvery on this one - I was under the impression that ALL blood samples are screened for things like HIV. I've never had sex with a man, and in fact, I haven't had sex with anyone other than my wife since before I got married. Since neither my wife or I are HIV positive, chances are we never will be. But I just cannot say the next time I give blood, "I've given before, my blood came back clean, and I've been in a monogomous relationship since that time, so you don't need to test my sample." (Well, I suppose I could say that, but they wouldn't listen to me.) Even if gay men have a higher chance of being HIV positive, if they are going to perform the test anyway, what is the problem? It's not like "higher chance" means something like 50% of gay men are HIV positive. I would imagine that well over 90% of sexually active gay men are not HIV positive.

 

I still think its a little preposterous. Statistics for the United States from 2006 show that HIV transmission from male-to-male sexual activity makes up 50% of all HIV infections in the country. We're assuming this is why there is protocol in place not to collect blood from such persons. What this statistical information also shows, is that 49% of all HIV infections come from persons of black descent, a percent nearly mirroring those of men who have taken part in a homosexual act. Blood collection agencies don't discriminate against persons of black decsent.

Realize that I'm not trying to be offensive here, and I feel that I am not, I just think this is a slight injustice since all of the blood is tested anyway.

-------EDIT: Heres a Link-------------
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/united_states.htm

 

The reason for the ban is simple, though not necessarily still applicable. Let's take an example here:

The Red Cross is taking blood from a workplace consisting of 4,000 employees (for statistic's sake) of two orientations, A and B (50% for each). People of orientation A only have a 2% chance to have any problems with their blood. People of orientation B have a 20% chance to have a problem with their blood. All workers donate, and all blood is tested. The blood from orientation A has 40 samples come back tainted, and 1,960 samples come back pure. The blood from orientation B has 400 samples come back tainted, and 1,600 samples come back pure. Assuming each sample cost $10 to collect and test, the good samples from group A cost an average of $10.20, while the good samples from group B cost $12.50.

This is obviously a simplified example, and I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but consider if a very small percentage of the giving population cost (on average for a pure sample) substantially more than the rest of the population. It makes sense to 'buy' the large amounts of cheaper blood first and only get the small amounts of more expensive blood when you really need it and have the resources.

Halasz, the reason they don't ban blacks, even though 49% of new HIV infections came from them, is because blacks represent something like 38% of the US population (don't know about UK), while homosexuals represent a substantially smaller population. You have almost the same number of new infections, yet probably a population difference of 10 times or more. On a cost-benefit ratio, blacks are far more likey to be 'profitable' (for a non-profit institution) than homosexuals.

 

Here in the UK there is a blood service group. I don't think it's run by the red cross but they are a national group that is totally focused on just blood collection (I think)

 

NOG but they need all of the blood, the demand for blood is generally much higher than the supply so it is a "sellers" market.

Also any insunation about homophobia must be in your mind. All I pointed out was that there seemed to be a correlation between opposing gay marriage and defending this old rule. You can interpret that any way you like, I just found it an interesting connection.

 

Joacqin, there is a need for blood, yes, but there is also a desperate need for money to collect it with. Locally, the Red Cross stopped collecting in a number of places, and made collections at other places less common, simply because they couldn't afford it any more. When you can't even afford to collect from known samples that have a descent collection rate (not great, but steady), you really can't afford to take samples from a questionable (in terms of blood purity) section of society.

Is it a seller's market when there's little money to buy with?

 

Sorry for a slight detour, but your estimate of the US black population is almost triple for what was estimated (~13%) in 2007 by the US Census Bureau (the 2008 figures are not yet available). Hispanics are now the largest minority in the US.

 

Wow, only 12.8%? I pulled that out of a very dusty corner of my memory, and I don't know how accurate it was to the original, much less when the original was taken. thanks for the update.

:files update back in dusty corner of memory:

 

I have to concede that I thought it was higher than 12.8% myself. I knew it was under 20%, which is why I checked when you listed it at 38%. Before I checked, I would have guessed it was around 18% had I been asked. So I was surprised by that result as well. That said, it does make sense. As hispanics are the fastest growing population in the US, it makes sense that both white and black populations would shrink as a percentage of the total population (although I do not think blacks ever comprised even 1/4 of the total population, much less nearly 40%).

EDIT: Actually, could you be confusing Virginia's population with the US average? Both Virginia and Maryland (where both of us happen to live) have black populations in the 30-something percentile.

 

That may well be possible. Like I said, I don't even remember exactly what that number applied to.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- which is more important?

A: The life or death of a patient receiving blood.

or

B: The feelings of a rejected donor.

The me the answer is blindingly obvious -- the life or death issue of the patient possibly getting some blood-borne disease trumps the feelings of the donor every single time. In fact, I don't understand why this is even a question. Do these rejected donors seriously think that their feelings supercede the rights of a patient to clean, healthy blood? If they do, I have zero respect for them.

 

That's all well and good but the blood gets tested anyway. When my son needed a life saving transfusion, I didn't care where the blood came from, the important thing was that he got it. I knew it would be clean because, as I've said, all donations are tested.
It's always a case that supply outstrips demand so why nit pick?

 

LKD thank you for showing your blinding ignorance. Are you sure your opposition does not stem from your own fear of maybe catching the "gay" if you would get "gay" blood?

 

Please explain why it is acceptable to make homophobia accusations towards anyone who disagrees? All the arguments in favor of the ban that I have seen here seem perfectly logical.

 

Most of the arguments here would seem perfectly logical if people weren't ignoring the fact that blood donations get tested for any problems

 

And if you ignore the fact that blood has been tested for many years now but still people managed to get HIV from transfusions. There is a term called 'detectable level' which is important to consider. The 'detectable level' may still be above the 'harmless level' -- although I am a chemist and understand the principles, this is not my field of specialty.

 

Also, Silvery, the most common arguement for an actual reason for the ban that I've seen is cost, which not only doesn't ignore that all blood is tested, but actually relies on it.

Though T2's point about detectable levels is good, too.