As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

[X Factor 1,112]

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

(CNN) -- The American Red Cross says power outages created by recent storms in the East and Midwest cut blood donations, which were already low this summer. In June there was a nationwide shortfall, with donations down more than 10% across the country.

"We are asking people to please call 1-800-RED-CROSS or visit us at redcrossblood.org to find a way to donate if they can," said Stephanie Millian, Red Cross director of biomedical communications. "We need people's help."

One group that would like to help, but legally can't, may be moving one step closer to eligibility. Since the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic decimated their community, gay men -- or MSMs (men who have sex with men) as they are called by federal agencies -- have not been allowed to donate blood. In June, a group of 64 U.S. legislators led by Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services encouraging it to move forward with a study that may lead to the end of the decades-old ban.

"We remain concerned that a blanket deferral of MSM for any length of time both perpetuates the unwarranted discrimination against the bisexual and gay community and prevents healthy men from donating blood without a definitive finding of added benefit to the safety of the blood supply," the letter said.

China lifts ban on lesbians giving blood

"This is a matter of life and death and we are turning away over 50,000 healthy men who want to donate blood," Quigley told CNN. "A straight person who has unsafe sex with multiple partners can give blood, and that creates a greater risk than a gay person in a monogamous relationship."

The policy started at a time when people didn't know how the deadly virus that causes AIDS spread. At the time, there wasn't a good test to detect whether HIV was present in donated blood, and HIV was getting into the nation's blood supply. They knew this because hemophiliacs who were getting blood transfusions started showing symptoms of AIDS. What scientists also knew was that a disproportionate number of gay men were affected by the virus.

For more info

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Nothing like having a few pints of AIDS pumped straight into the ol vein. I wonder what the geniuses are going to come up with next.

[Danno 1,228]

Are we really suggesting here that the health officials -just don't like gay blood?

Q: Is Gay blood more of a risk than other identifiable groups?

Q: Are people who shoot drugs more of a risk?

This is really a policy best left to the medical professionals and not the Political professionals.

[rocks 494]

Red Cross blood donation policies discriminate against gay people.

It's important to understand that blood safety is a public health issue, not a social policy issue. The Red Cross is required by law to follow all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and recommendations for the blood industry, including the current deferral of men who have had sex with other men. Along with other members of the blood banking industry, the Red Cross supports a data-based reconsideration of deferral criteria.

Don't they screen the blood before they use it?

Edited July 8, 2012 by rocks

[sandinista! 1,816]

Don't they screen the blood before they use it?

while the screening processes they use are very, very good, they are not perfect.

and the fact still remains that in 2009, 79% of all new cases of HIV in men occurred in men who have sex with other men, in this country, according to the cdc.

that doesn't mean though that the subset of homosexual men who would be blood donors have those same statistics.

the red cross wants to go to a 12 month deferral for homosexual men, but the fda wouldn't let them. the red cross had solid research and numbers to make their case though. i see nothing wrong with the 12 month deferral, instead of the lifetime ban.

[X Factor 1,112]

Nothing like having a few pints of AIDS pumped straight into the ol vein. I wonder what the geniuses are going to come up with next.

Perhaps import blood from France

[Dakine10 5,452]

while the screening processes they use are very, very good, they are not perfect.

and the fact still remains that in 2009, 79% of all new cases of HIV in men occurred in men who have sex with other men, in this country, according to the cdc.

that doesn't mean though that the subset of homosexual men who would be blood donors have those same statistics.

the red cross wants to go to a 12 month deferral for homosexual men, but the fda wouldn't let them. the red cross had solid research and numbers to make their case though. i see nothing wrong with the 12 month deferral, instead of the lifetime ban.

Many homosexual men donate blood already anyway. The deferral is currently based on information given by the donor. If the donor doesn't want to check the box saying he's gay, the blood bank wouldn't really know. I would rather see self deferral based on people who actively have multiple sex partners as that is the highest risk of having an undiagnosed HIV infection.

I agree though, the 12 month deferral is probably an acceptable compromise, given that the screening test is more likely to miss low levels of HIV.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

If you read the who is excluded fine print both my husband ( for being African) and I ( for being the sex partner of an African) are in the excluded group.

[Danno 1,228]

Should we also find a way for people who shoot drugs to donate as well?

Certain groups of people by their activities or place of residence are a much higher risk. If these donors are such a small percentage of the whole why even bother?

Has anyone clarified why lesbians are barred also (if in fact they are)?

[X Factor 1,112]

Has anyone clarified why lesbians are barred also (if in fact they are)?

I think they are barred but not 100% sure. And are lesbians less of a risk to have aids than gay men?

[Danno 1,228]

I think they are barred but not 100% sure. And are lesbians less of a risk to have aids than gay men?

Absolutely.

I will guess at a couple reasons,

1. the nature of the way Homosexual men have sex by definition is how AIDS so often spread.

2.Homosexual men have random sex much more often than lesbians.

[Dakine10 5,452]

If you read the who is excluded fine print both my husband ( for being African) and I ( for being the sex partner of an African) are in the excluded group.

The list is large. I am deferred for having lived in Britain for 6 months. The theoretical risk of having mad cow disease. But again, these are all self deferrals.

I can understand Britain kind of, since that disease doesn't show up for years and there's no test. I think being from Africa should be a limited deferral - 12 months or whatever they decide is acceptable. I don't think there's anything they screen for that would remain latent any longer than that.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Dakine10

[rocks 494]

The list is large. I am deferred for having lived in Britain for 6 months. The theoretical risk of having mad cow disease. But again, these are all self deferrals.

I can understand Britain kind of, since that disease doesn't show up for years and there's no test. I think being from Africa should be a limited deferral - 12 months or whatever they decide is acceptable. I don't think there's anything they screen for that would remain latent any longer than that.

Wow, I'm really surprised by all of this. Didn't America also have BSE?

[sandinista! 1,816]

That's true. It's not as if donors are followed around 24/7, and all of their activities carefully monitored. Still there remains those whose ethics dictate they answer truthfully on the donor survey, no matter what. And the blood bank association is not going to be able to have a policy of "oh well, people are just all liars anyways, let's just take everyone's blood". They know that even with their excellent screening, they are still dependent on potential donors' honesty to a certain extent. I'm willing to bet though that all of those factors are taken into consideration when they conduct their research and publish public health reports and create their policies based on that research. Self deferral of everyone based on multiple sex partners would exclude too many people whose heterosexuality, even with multiple partners, still makes them a lesser risk. The statistics and studies bear this out, no matter how discriminatory it sounds. That's the nature of public health. This pertains to donations from sub-Saharan Africans and their partners as well. There's more to it than what sounds fair and reasonable. The research has to bear out the safety of that change in policy. 

(this applies just as much to the "keep the gays out of the blood supply, OMG, the germy icky gays" crowd as well. The research supports a much more nuanced policy than that.)

Many homosexual men donate blood already anyway. The deferral is currently based on information given by the donor. If the donor doesn't want to check the box saying he's gay, the blood bank wouldn't really know. I would rather see self deferral based on people who actively have multiple sex partners as that is the highest risk of having an undiagnosed HIV infection.

  I agree though, the 12 month deferral is probably an acceptable compromise, given that the screening test is more likely to miss low levels of HIV.

[X Factor 1,112]

Absolutely.

I will guess at a couple reasons,

1. the nature of the way Homosexual men have sex by definition is how AIDS so often spread.

2.Homosexual men have random sex much more often than lesbians.

Yep they take more risk. The bath houses in San Francisco - need I say more.