WOW, I didn't know

 

 

 

 

 

Ban on Gay Blood and Bone Marrow Donors May Be Lifted

 

Did you know that it is illegal for gay males to give blood?

 

 

 

At any time there seems to be a blood shortage throughout the United States. Hospitals desperately await blood and bone marrow from donors with specific blood types. More often than not, a donation could end up saving the life of an adult or child in desperate need.

 

 

 

As you can imagine, many factors need to be considered before a suitable match can be found for a person in need, the most crucial being compatible blood types. Donors of rare blood types are increasingly difficult to find, prolonging the search and increasing the chance of a patient's death.

 

 

 

What if a donor with a rare blood type happens to be gay?

 

 

 

In response to the AIDS crisis of the 1980's the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood. This 1985 provision argued that men who have sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and hepatitis, posing a health risk to potential recipients. Thus, even with a needed rare blood type, gay men are prohibited from donating blood.

 

 

 

What if a terminally ill patient is in need of a specific blood type and there is a gay man willing to be a donor?

 

 

 

Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. Unfortunately, the patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the health risk.

 

 

 

Is the ban based on medical fact or homophobia?

 

 

 

The Case Against: Banning Gay Donors is Prejudice!

 

 

 

Gay advocate Peter Tatchell states that the ban on gay blood donors "is based on the assumption that all homosexual and bisexual men are 'high risk' for HIV." and that the "policy seems to reflect homophobic prejudices, not medical facts."

 

 

 

Others argue that by excluding any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 proves the homophobic nature of the policy. The quality and timeliness of HIV and AIDS evaluations has improved dramatically, producing results within days or even minutes. Since most blood transfusions require weeks of preparation there is ample time to re-test as a precaution. The policy also virtually ignores the health risk posed by heterosexual donors who've been exposed to HIV or AIDS.

 

 

 

The Case Against: Banning Gay Donors Protects the Health of Recipients!

 

 

 

The FDA posted the following question and response on their web site:

 

 

 

As a gay male, why am I deferred as a potential blood donor simply because of my sexual orientation? Furthermore, I am in a monogamous relationship. I am being discriminated against. Will this recommendation be removed any time soon?

 

 

 

In 1983, FDA recommended donor-screening procedures to exclude individuals at increased risk for transmitting Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). These recommendations have been updated periodically since then. The exclusion of potential donors based on certain sexual histories has been discussed often, and in-depth, by FDA's Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC). This panel of non-FDA independent experts continues to recommend the deferral of men who have sex with other men and their recent partners. This issue was discussed at the December 11-12, 1997, BPAC meeting. The committee voted to reconsider the current recommendations for deferral of men who have had sex with other men. However, at that time the committee did not specify what the specific recommendations should be. Data on the incidence and prevalence of HIV and other viruses in men who have had sex with other men and data on HIV positive blood donors were presented at the November 23, 1998, FDA Workshop on Blood Donor Suitability... [/qoute]

Difficult topic... After thinking it over for a while, I agree with not allowing homo-sexual men to donate blood. I have nothing against homo-sexuals, but they do carry a risk with them.

 

 

 

If it were about a more simple disease then hiv, I would be inclined to allow them to donate blood, but it's difficult with hiv. First of all, just about anyone knows that homo-sexual men have increased risk of contracting hiv. If it could be easily screened for, there would be no problem. But the thing to remember is, hiv has a window period. This means that for a certain period, one is already infected with hiv, but it is not yet detectable. This is what makes this issue so difficult for me.

 

 

 

Ultimately I have to be against the homo-sexuals on this one. I am against discrimination, but this is for the greater good. (imho)

At least it isn't just because their gay, they do have a pretty good reason.

Well this is prejudice. How do they even know the persons sexuality. I could walk in to a blood donor...Say im not bi and i have not had sexual intercourse with a man..Get it done and be out them not even knowing.

 

If you use condoms then you will have the same chance as a heterosexual couple having sexual intercourse. Why? Because condoms have a high chance of blocking against stis.

Its only discrimination if there is no viable medical reason for the policy. Since we do not have the numbers that show the occurence of HIV/AIDS in heterosexual males versus homosexual males, we are in no position to debate the validity of this policy. Just because something appears discriminatory does not mean that it is. I dont know the numbers so I cant say.

Its only discrimination if there is no viable medical reason for the policy. Since we do not have the numbers that show the occurence of HIV/AIDS in heterosexual males versus homosexual males, we are in no position to debate the validity of this policy. Just because something appears discriminatory does not mean that it is. I dont know the numbers so I cant say.

 

 

 

I agree. But.... :P

 

If we assume that people don't use condoms (I know, a lot of people do use condoms, but most sexual diseases are transmitted because of unprotected sex as far as I know), then this isn't so unreasonable, simply because you have a way higher chance of contracting hiv as a homo-sexual man because of anal sex.

HIV test blood donors=problem solved? :?

 

 

 

If I needed blood and knew it'd keep me alive, couldn't care less if it came from a straight person, a lesbian, or a starving unicorn. I feel especially bad for those people who have rare blood types and risk death due to idiotic policies like this.

 

 

 

0.6% of americans have HIV/AIDS while about 10% of american males and females are gay.

 

 

 

Not to mention, gay people aren't the only people catching those diseases even if they're at an increased risk. Straight, "average" people have the disease as well (as well as persons of Haitian origin, for some reason)

 

 

 

It's biased/irrational homophobia and should be removed from legislation.

 

 

 

Ban fat people from being blood donors next because their blood may have been affected by high cholesterol from the fatty foods they eat?!

 

 

 

But the thing to remember is, hiv has a window period. This means that for a certain period, one is already infected with hiv, but it is not yet detectable.

 

 

 

As outlined, it's not just gay people who have HIV. While the disease is in 'window period' for some people, it's impossible to know who have it. Theoretically any donor could have it.

HIV test blood donors=problem solved? :?

 

 

 

But the thing to remember is, hiv has a window period. This means that for a certain period, one is already infected with hiv, but it is not yet detectable. This is what makes this issue so difficult for me.

If the person didn't have sex or kisses or anything gay related but is gay, what the situation there?

This is just prejudice. ANYONE can have HIV/AIDs, and everyone has the 'window' period. When you get blood from anyone, you're running the same risk. There's nothing different about the blood from a gay person or a straight person. There is a difference in the blood of an HIV infected person and an uninfected person, but you can't tell if they're gay or not from that.

If I am unable to donate blood because I have a family history with diabetes, this law is perfectly justified.

 

 

 

People with prostitution or needle-based drug use can't give blood either (same reason as the Gay clause).

 

 

 

It makes sense, actually.

Please write that this is the case in The United States.

 

In Denmark its perfectly legal. And there have been no accounts of a blood transfusion infecting the reciever.

 

 

 

My father has had cancer twice, and more than once he's had ALL his blood transfused. I wrote a text msg asking his opinion, and he believes everyone should have the right to choose wether or not to donate blood, provided the blood is noninfected, naturally.

If I am unable to donate blood because I have a family history with diabetes, this law is perfectly justified.

 

 

 

People with prostitution or needle-based drug use can't give blood either (same reason as the Gay clause).

 

 

 

It makes sense, actually.

 

 

 

You're going to compare being gay to prostitution and needle based druga usage? :wall:

This is just prejudice. ANYONE can have HIV/AIDs, and everyone has the 'window' period. When you get blood from anyone, you're running the same risk. There's nothing different about the blood from a gay person or a straight person. There is a difference in the blood of an HIV infected person and an uninfected person, but you can't tell if they're gay or not from that.

 

 

 

I would think that removing a minority of the population thats at higher risk might out weigh the disadvantages. I only disgree with one part of the law and that is that patients should be givin the rigth to allow gay donars if doctors are sure they fully comprehend the risk.

 

 

 

Of course my view is skewed sonce normally when you need a transfusion it is the red blood cells you need, not the plasma. My blood type is AB- meaning that I am a universal reciver (I have had 2 transfusions and I am not even 18 yet. One was AB and one was B+, maybe B-). Of course if I ever needed plasma, then I must recive from either AB+ or AB-.

Its only discrimination if there is no viable medical reason for the policy. Since we do not have the numbers that show the occurence of HIV/AIDS in heterosexual males versus homosexual males, we are in no position to debate the validity of this policy. Just because something appears discriminatory does not mean that it is. I dont know the numbers so I cant say.

 

 

 

Actually, there are statistics that show that gay men are more prone to HIV than straight men. You just haven't seen them. But ask a real doctor, and I'm 100% sure they can confirm this.

 

 

 

During anal sex, one is more liable to draw blood anally, than during vaginal sex.

 

Also, since its anal sex its more common to NOT use a condom, since a condoms primary use is to prevent sperm from entering the vagina.

 

 

 

Not so ironically, gay man have more buttsex than straight men.

I thought AB+ was the universal recipient, since it has the nodes or something, but negative doesn't, so negative can't recieve positive but positive can recieve both.

If I am unable to donate blood because I have a family history with diabetes, this law is perfectly justified.

 

 

 

People with prostitution or needle-based drug use can't give blood either (same reason as the Gay clause).

 

 

 

It makes sense, actually.

 

 

 

You're going to compare being gay to prostitution and needle based druga usage? :wall:

 

 

 

I don't think he's comparing, just stating what he knows to be true in the laws of america.

If I am unable to donate blood because I have a family history with diabetes, this law is perfectly justified.

 

 

 

People with prostitution or needle-based drug use can't give blood either (same reason as the Gay clause).

 

 

 

It makes sense, actually.

 

 

 

You're going to compare being gay to prostitution and needle based druga usage? :wall:

 

 

 

No? If you were educated on the subject, prostitution and drug use carry risk of HIV/AIDS. The same reason that this law prevents homosexuals from giving blood.

 

 

 

You have to realize (you probably were not alive at the time) that in the 1980's, the Western world was going NUTS over HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

I will give you that this law is probably outdated, but it made sense for it's time. It was not a law based on far-right values or made to "gay-bash."

I only heard about this recently as well, and had a likewise initial reaction: "discrimination!". But, as it happens, you need to take into account a broader picture. This isn't about discrimination, it's about medicine. Your blood is not accepted in several instances. One of the obvious is if you engage in sexual activities with risks. Id est: unprotected sex, sex with several partners,... If you are a homosexual, your sexual activities are considered risk bearing. I'm not saying it's impossible to have unprotected sex as a homosexual, it's just that the risks are indeed higher. Especially some 10 to 20 years ago.

 

 

 

It seems logical to me that no risks should be taken with blood. As such, I do understand the law... even though it seems unfair at first sight.

 

 

 

By the way, this isn't just an American law. It works like that in Belgium as well. And this is actually one of the few countries where gay people can be lawfully wed.

If the person didn't have sex or kisses or anything gay related but is gay, what the situation there?

I think it's legal.

Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. Unfortunately, the patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the health risk.

 

 

 

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork?

 

 

 

Something to think about.

By the way, this isn't just an American law. It works like that in Belgium as well. And this is actually one of the few countries where gay people can be lawfully wed.

 

Whilst I can scarcely believe this, I'm actually agreeing with Barihawk here. Even in our NHS, part of the public sector, men who have had anal sex with another man, even if safe and using a condom, are told they can never give blood. Women who have anal sex with a man who has had sex with another man in the past 12 months shouldn't give blood either, according to the guidelines.

 

 

 

The issue here in not one of homophobia; it is one of Medicine and evidence does admittedly show a higher rate of HIV amongst homosexual men than their straight counterparts, although there are more facotrs for that than simply, "They're gay", as many homophobes take joy in falsely claiming.

 

 

 

I'm intrigued by BlueLancer's logic though; can't this whole issue simply be made indiscriminate by forcing a HIV test for all blood donors? I suppose the counter would be that this would discourage people from donating blood, and there is a desperate shortage as it is.

If I am unable to donate blood because I have a family history with diabetes, this law is perfectly justified.

 

 

 

People with prostitution or needle-based drug use can't give blood either (same reason as the Gay clause).

 

 

 

It makes sense, actually.

 

 

 

You're going to compare being gay to prostitution and needle based druga usage? :wall:

 

 

 

Because they all carry a "hightened risk" of HIV/AIDS contraction :-s

I thought it was because anal sex has an increased chance of transferring HIV/AIDS. :-k

 

 

 

Although admittedly you don't have to be gay to do ... that. :anxious:

I'm intrigued by BlueLancer's logic though; can't this whole issue simply be made indiscriminate by forcing a HIV test for all blood donors? I suppose the counter would be that this would discourage people from donating blood, and there is a desperate shortage as it is.

 

 

 

I've just been reading up on the (Dutch/Flemish) website of the Red Cross and it says that every batch of blood they take is checked for HIV, Hepatitis B/C and syphilis. They don't force the test on the donors, they just test all the blood that comes in (and should you have a disease, they obviously let you know).

 

 

 

However, to be as safe as possible, before taking blood, they also do a preselection of the blood donors through a questionnaire, to get as risk-free batches as possible and to keep the amount of "tainted" blood they get and need to destroy to a minimum. Seems logical and fair, actually.