Gay friend not allowed to give blood

[Dragonbreathp9d]

Today, my high school had a CarterCare Blood Drive, students sign up to donate blood. My friend was not allowed to donate purely because he was gay. (There was a questionaire and he was honest). My guess for fear of disease, but that is ridiculous and is terribly prejudicial. Just thought y'all would want to know.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Oh, believe me, I know

Any man who has ever had sex with another man is permanently barred from giving blood. This has been effectively the law since the early 1980s. Lots and lots of effort has been put in to changing this, but to no avail yet.

[FreedomAngel82]

106. What about the women?

[TechBear_Seattle]

126. The "guidelines" specifically prohibit donors who have had M2M sex

of any kind. If you are a man who once, in your early teens, got a hummer from a drunk male roommate, you are barred from ever giving blood (at least, that's the case if you are a Republican who screamed about Clinton's definition of "sex.")

Women... who cares? Woman-with-woman is a fantasy come true; man-with-man is a plague. At least, that seems to be the bigoted "logic" that's been in place for the last quarter of a century.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Was it just because he is gay; or because he's gay and had unprotected

sex in the last 6 months with someone who is not his sole partner?

I havent' given blood for a while, but I remember that question being there; not about sexual orientation, but about sexual activity.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

4. There was no question of protected vs unprotected

[sabbat hunter]

8. even with a condom

there still is a small chance of infection

[pschoeb]

34. Same goes for Heteros

[jonnyblitz]

13. nope if you are gay you can't give, period. nt

[Sub Atomic]

117. The last time I tried to give blood, I was denied because

I had sex with another man since 1998.

[liberalnurse]

3. This group is considered

a high-risk group. They can not donate plasma either. I'd say it's might ignorant of the powers that be to think straight people have "straight sex" only, are virgins when married and monogamous like a whale.

[sabbat hunter]

5. any male

who has had sex with another male, taken money/drugs for sex or a woman who has had sex with a man who had sex with another man are automatically disqualified from donating blood.

technically they can use that blood for research purposes though

[LisaL]

6. You can't donate blood if you had a tattoo in the last 12 months

either.

[sabbat hunter]

9. or a

piercing

[Scout1071]

86. Or traveling to Africa, Asia, South America in the last 3 years.

Or any number of other reasons. If his friend answered "yes" to a lot of risky sexual behavior questions, then he is at a high risk for infectious diseases, no?

He could be gay and have answered "no" to a lot of those questions and been accepted. I'm just sayin', we don't know what he did or did not say on that questionnaire.


I haven't been able to give for 4 years on the U.S.

[sabbat hunter]

129. well

i dont know about where he gave blood but here in NY they give you two little stickers, one for use my blood for transfusion, one dont use my blood for transfusion. they are just barcodes so no one in the center knows which one you chose.
this is for if you may have lied on any of your answers and your blood shouldnt be used for transfusions.

[eallen]

7. Your donation is also rejected if...

If you lived in Britain during certain years, or have been in jail for longer than 72 hours, or visited a tropical rain forest in the last year, or had sex with a prostitute. And I suspect your friend was rejected not for being gay, but for having sex with another man. It's not a moral judgment, but a risk assessment.

[LisaL]

11. Man who have sex with other men are gay?

Or at least I always thought so.
But a lot of things can get someone rejected from blood donation. Those are the rules.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

12. Yes, lots of things

can get you rejected, but that was the only thing 'wrong' with him.

[LisaL]

16. He belongs to a group that is considered high risk for HIV.

Frankly, I don't know how many people get HIV from tattoos, but I bet there is a lot less risk than from men who have sex with other men.
Yet the people who get tattoos are still not allowed to donate.

[Bluebear]

28. 50% of HIV infections are in women; why aren't they "high risk"?

In 1997, approximately 41% of adults living with HIV/AIDS were women; by 2002 this proportion had risen to 50%. Of the approximately 40 million adults worldwide living with HIV/AIDS in 2002, about 19.2 million were women. Every day, approximately 5,500 women are newly infected with HIV, and more than 3,000 die from AIDS-related illnesses.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-03-01-12

[LisaL]

35. Depending on the activity, women could be considered high risk.

Read the questionnaire.

[Bluebear]

46. I'm not sure I am interested in the questionnaire.

You would think they would screen all blood anyhow. Beyond that, this doesn't seem to be anything new or different.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

60. Bluebear, all blood IS screened. The units that can still transmit in-

fection are those whose donors are in a "window" period.

Let's say you got infected with HIV or hepatitis today. Your blood would be infectious almost immediately. However, most of the screening tests detect ANTIBODIES against the viruses. It generally takes at least a few weeks for your body to mount the antibody response that will result in a positive test.

During this time you are in a "window" period in which your donated unit can be infectious but negative on screening (what we call a "false negative" in epidemiology/statistics).

Currently, "false negative" infectious units of blood result in an incidence of about 1 in 400,000 units of blood transmitting HIV infection. Of course these are units that test negative, but in fact harbor the virus.

The screening questions are based on eliminating higher risk populations of people to the degree possible. One of the key reasonings is, that, in studying the patterns of blood donors, donors are very often "habitual" or "repeat" donors who donate frequently, at regular intervals. If they engage in risk behaviors then they are more likely to donate an infected unit during a "window" period. That is my understanding of the reasoning to screen people like this.

Of course people sometimes lie, to themselves, and to the blood bank, on the questionnaire, but they are just trying to make an effort to screen.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

61. However, it bans you from EVER donating blood

if you have had male/male sex, there is no "within the past 5 weeks" or whatever

[Misunderestimator]

133. I know a woman who had NORMAL activity and got HIV from her boyfriend.

No anal sex, no risky sex at all, just neglecting to use a condom a couple of times. Yeah, stupid... but how many women have never had sex without protection of a condom? How many wives think their husbands are having sex only with them, and therefore never use condoms? IMO, those women are MORE at risk to donate infected blood than gay men, since at least gay men understand the risk of sex without protection. Yet, those women, by use of this questionnaire, are considered perfect donors.

Instead of screening people, since people LIE anyway, they should be spending time developing better processes to screen the fucking blood.

[LisaL]

135. If she knows she is infected, she won't be able to donate.

So, she won't be considered a perfect donor.

[Misunderestimator]

137. That was not the point of my post at all.

I was answering your post: "Depending on the activity, women could be considered high risk."

You imply that women engaging in risky behavior ("depending on the activity") could be considered high-risk. I was explaining that many women who DO NOT engage in risky behavior are also a risk.

During her window in which she did not know that she had contracted HIV, in which it could be undetectable in the blood, and during the THREE YEARS after that short relationship ended in which she had contracted it from her ex-boyfriend... she DID NOT KNOW that she was infected.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

91. Bluebear, if you click on the footnotes on that page, you will see that

the first two figures you cite are from a UNAIDS study of the GLOBAL epidemic. While the proportion of new cases in women is much higher now in the U.S., it's not nearly 50 percent.

Here is a one page CDC paper on this, from the MMWR, the periodic biostatistics bulletin they put out on various diseases:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5445a1.htm

During 2001--2004, an estimated 157,252 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the 33 states reporting to CDC. Of these, 112,106 (71%) were male and 45,146 (29%) were female (Table 1)

This is important because the relevant donor pool is the U.S.

[Bluebear]

123. You're my bro, MM

You know I hold you in the highest esteem. This rehashing of the subject is nauseating to me. The rules are what they are and they aren't going to change, end of story. To have the whole thread dissolve into an AIDS-is-a-gay-disease and what risky creatures they are festival is not progressive or relevant, imho. Best.

[donheld]

141. Bluebear, If they don't want our blood screw'em

If you are gay and in a monogamous long-term realtionship they still consider you tainted. That's why I say screw'em.

[unblock]

22. gay has to do with which sex you're attracted to sexually

for various reasons, people often have sexual contact with people to which they're not sexually attracted.

rape is just the obvious example, and yes, straight men can get raped by men. think prison, if nothing else.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

29. The screening question doesn't ask if you're "gay", it asks if

you are a man who has had sex with another man. That is the higher risk group. For instance, lesbians, who are also "gay", are NOT excluded because they do not represent a higher risk group.


Blood donors frequently are repeat, or habitual donors. Since there's about a 4 week "window" period during which someone can be infected with, say, HIV, but their blood will not be seropositive for the virus (a "false negative"), repeat donors in high risk groups represent a greater risk for contaminating a unit despite screening, and hence are excluded.

Here is a link with the screening questions:

http://www.newenglandblood.org/giving/guide.htm

Here are examples of some of the questions, with "yes" or "no" if you can donate blood:


Piercing of an ear or other body part with an unsterile needle within 12 months

No


Postpartum more than 6 weeks

Yes


Pregnancy

No


Sex—For men and women: Received money or drugs for sex since 1977.

No


Sex—For men and women: Within the last 12 months had sex with a prostitute or anyone else to takes money or drugs or other payment for sex.

No


Sex—For men: Had sex even once with another male since 1977

No


Sex—For women: Within the last 12 months had a male sex partner who had sex with another male, even once, since 1977

No


Stroke— if symptom free and no restrictions on physical activity

Yes


Tattoo within the last 12 months with clean needles in a licensed establishment in CT, ME, RI, or VT. Tattoos done in MA, NH and NY require a 12 month wait period before donating blood.

Yes


Tattoo within the last 12 months with unclean needles

No

[Dragonbreathp9d]

36. Then why dont they include

unprotected sex of any kind?

[LisaL]

41. That could be a problem for married people.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

42. Because the risk has not been as great for those who have had un-

protected sex not involving a male/male sex. Note that they also exclude females who have had sex with a male who's had man/man sex.

It's just like the insurance biz, they are simply screening based on the odds of what is known about risk groups. See also my post on tattoos.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

47. But it is not easier to get it through male/male

than it is any other way. There is not some magical disease produced from butt sex. It is discriminatory by saying that gay men are too at risk to bother screening the blood.

[Bluebear]

51. By the way not all gay men have "butt sex"

[Dragonbreathp9d]

56. True,

but then why is it ok for lesbians? Just making a point

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

74. Because lesbians do not represent a pool of people who have a higher

incidence of HIV/HepC/HepB than the general population. If anything, I believe they are at lower risk, statistically, for all this.

[pinto]

108. You may be confusing politics with epidemiology. Y'know?

It's a long standing issue. But to be blunt, anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than any other vector other than injecting a sufficient quantity of infected blood. It's about mechanics and viral transmission, not politics. The colon's wall is more like to tear during sex than the vaginal wall. An open tear is a key for transmission. While highly succeptible to HIV transmission the vaginal wall is a better barrier to viral infection then the colon's wall. I don't much care who's colon we're talking about here, it's about how you get HIV.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

139. You can get HIV without a tear

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

62. However, it is a statistical fact that the incidence of HIV, as well as

hepatitis B, is higher in the population of men who have sex with men. This is of course due to behaviors that people had mostly in the late 70's through mid to late 80's, but the fact remains.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

64. I doubt that is still true

[SPKrazy]

88. You are wrong

due to a phenomenon called "barebacking", the rates of HIV infection among communities of gay men, especially younger ones that don't remember the 80's and the outbreak of HIV among gay men, is on the rise.

http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3584

[Joe the Revelator]

130. Actually, you're wrong

The skin lining the anal cavity is much thinner then the skin lining the walls of the vagina. During intercourse, the anal tissue tears, causing bleeding, and giving any potential virus a direct route into the blood system

[dflprincess]

52. There are also several African countries that traveling to or living in

during a certain period will disqualify you. Also, having had sex with someone from one of those countries disqualifies you (I just donated on Tuesday, the questions are still fresh in my mind).

You also may not donate if a family member had or has CJ (I can't remember the spelling I'm talking the human form of mad cow).

I have a friend who was a nurse on a dialysis unit. She couldn't donate for several years because that work left her with a higher risk for hepatitis exposure.

I went into donate once but I had had root planning done the week before and was told to come back in a couple weeks. Even though I was feeling fine, there was a chance that the dental work had left bacteria floating around in my system - not enough to bother me - but enough to cause problems if my blood was given to someone with a compromised immune system. (BTW I was told a regular dental cleaning is not a problem, as long as I was having my teeth cleaned regularily - though it's still not a bad idea to wait a few days.)

It only makes sense that blood banks screen out people with a higher risk. They have to protect the people receiving the blood.

[bullwinkle428]

101. I can never donate blood again - result of getting the Hepatitis B vaccine

Apparently, I tested positive for an antibody made in response to the Hep. B virus. I've never had the virus, but did get the vaccine a good 10 years ago. I've done some research on this, and this is not all that uncommon...

[pinto]

110. Having antibodies to Hep B means the vaccine "took". That's a good thing.

[bullwinkle428]

142. I'm still trying to figure out why they consider my blood to be "tainted"?

Hey, blood bank: :wtf:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

145. I think the problem is, it's difficult to distinguish between positive

antibody test to Hep B due to vaccination versus infection, so it's just easier to exclude than to try and make this distinction.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

10. Statistics show

the most at risk group for HIV in America is teenaged, straight, African Americans. It is ignorant to belive that AIDS is a 'gay disease' as some have called it and got my blood boiling (no pun intended).

[LisaL]

14. I don't think so.

If 18 % of men that have sex with other men are HIV positive, then it's only justified they are not allowed to donate blood.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol12N2/CDCReports.html

[Bluebear]

15. That figure is highly, highly suspect. nt

[sniffa]

17. thank god straights don't have tainted bLood

[Dragonbreathp9d]

18. Even if that number is true

than 88% can still give blood (all other variables discounted). They will still screen your blood, so no one will get AIDS infused blood, they do it as a time and money saver.

[LisaL]

20. What is the risk of getting HIV from tattoos?

If anything, it's the tattooed people who should be offended.

[unblock]

24. unsterilized, reused needles.

theoretically, anyway. i don't know the numbers.

[LisaL]

31. If it's so dangerous, then shouldn't someone to regulate the

tattoo parlors or shut them down?

[Bluebear]

32. Why can women donate blood? 50% of HIV infections are in women.

In 1997, approximately 41% of adults living with HIV/AIDS were women; by 2002 this proportion had risen to 50%. Of the approximately 40 million adults worldwide living with HIV/AIDS in 2002, about 19.2 million were women. Every day, approximately 5,500 women are newly infected with HIV, and more than 3,000 die from AIDS-related illnesses.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-03-01-12

[LisaL]

37. Not all women can donate blood.

For instance, hookers are not allowed.

[sniffa]

40. and women who have husbands on the down Low

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

38. With tattoos, Hepatitis B and C are much greater concern than HIV.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11895092&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum



Epidemiol Infect. 2002 Feb;128(1):63-71. Related Articles, Links

Tattooing and risk for transfusion-transmitted diseases: the role of the type, number and design of the tattoos, and the conditions in which they were performed.

Nishioka Sde A, Gyorkos TW, Joseph L, Collet JP, Maclean JD.

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Tattoos have been shown to be associated with transfusion-transmitted diseases (TTDs), particularly hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. Very little is known about the association between different categories of tattoos and TTDs. In a cross-sectional study in Brazil, we studied 182 individuals with tattoos and assessed the odds of testing positive for a TTD according to tattoo type, number, design and performance conditions. Major findings were significant associations between an increasing number of tattoos and HBV infection (odds ratio (OR) of 2.04 for two tattoos and 3.48 for > or = 3 tattoos), having a non-professional tattoo and testing positive for at least one TTD (OR = 3.25), and having > or = 3 tattoos and testing positive for at least one TTD (OR = 2.98). We suggest that non-professional tattoos and number of tattoos should be assessed as potential deferral criteria in screening blood donors.

PMID: 11895092

(Odds ratio of 2 or 3 means that you have 2 or 3 times the chance of an untattooed "control" of carrying, in the case of this particular study, hepatitis B.)

[dsc]

85. the tattoo restriction isn't about AIDS

it is about general infections. That is why the problem is only for 12 months and not forever.

[pinto]

111. Nowadays, in professional shops, virtually nil. Just don't go to prison.

[unblock]

23. the "gay disease" crap was idiotic malice by the reaganauts

it was never a "gay disease" in ANY OTHER COUNTRY. the ONLY reason to even remotely have ever thought of it as a "gay disease" is that the initial victims in ONE PARTICULAR COUNTRY (the u.s.) happened to be gay. epidemiologically speaking, this is utterly irrelevant. we weren't the first country infected, we aren't the most infected country, we're just another locale for the disease.

but most of the early american victims were gay, so they still call it a "gay disease".

just more propaganda motivated by homophobia, for the purposes of advancing the cause of homophobia.

[Bluebear]

25. I am impressed that a gay teen in Texas would even disclose the fact

that he is gay in this situation. :eyes:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

27. We have a large theatre group

we take good care of our homosexuals in Denton.

Well, as good as could be expected, suffice to say he is popular and there is enough theatre kids to get his back.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. The questionnaire is anonymous. If it weren't, people would be more

dishonest than they even are.

[Bluebear]

49. But the questionnaire is matched to the sample I take it?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

59. Yes, of course

you can even lie on the questionaire and then put a little barcode to denote that there could be reason for your blood to not be used that you did not want to put on the form for privacy reasons.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

66. No the questionnaire is reviewed before you are allowed to donate.

[Bluebear]

79. So how is that anonymous?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

87. You don't have to go to donate blood with other people. If you honestly

answer the questionnaire, and are screened out, then that's it. You never donate a sample. No one needs know.

Of course, if you know you were screened out, and without checking to see if the guidelines were revised, go back to "screen" again, then you would not be being honest with the blood bank or yourself...

Of course it is not perfect. The process assumes that some people will be dishonest, they are just trying to design questions to screen the highest risk groups. They know they will screen out plenty of folks who don't carry HIV etc.

And they do try and revise the questions once in a while, for instance, currently, to screen against those who might be at risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow").

It is not perfect.

The method is based on statistics though, just like insurance.

[pinto]

116. I'm impressed as well. Sounds like he's got two feet of his own.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

26. Agree 100%

[SPKrazy]

90. In The 80's (pre 1982) It Was Not Known That AIDS

was the same disease they were seeing other places, no one knew what it was.

Hell Reagan wouldn't even acknowledge it.

It was thought to be a gay disease early on, but we know it's not just a gay disease.

Women are more likely to get it from men.

Gays who have anal sex are more likely to get it than not, especially unprotected.

Those who have had blood transfusions aren't allowed.

Lots and lots of people aren't allowed to give blood, but you focus on gays not being allowed to.

To what end? Do you want gays to give blood? Do you want IV drug addicts to give blood as long as the swear they've never used dirty needles?

Do you want promiscuous heterosexual men or women to give blood (people with more than one partner in a certain amount of time aren't allowed either)

Get over yourself

This is about public health, not some slam to gays

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

96. Thanks for this, you've stated the principle involved correctly.

It's no more bigotry than the insurance company being "bigoted" against a chainsmoker with a strong family history of early death from heart disease.

[unblock]

114. but once it WAS known that it was the same disease

why take the inaccurate name for an undiagnosed/misidentified outbreak and apply it to an already existing condition affecting a much wider population in many countries?

[KitSileya]

146. You are a voice of reason.

In fact, my mother, who is violently allergic to almonds (and only almonds - she had a serious allergic reaction 35 years ago, and has avoided them since) is not allowed to donate blood. Why? The antibodies are in her blood, and anyone given her blood would have an allergic reaction to almonds within a 24-hr window after transfusion. You'd think that people receiving blood would be too sick to eat Almond Joy, but what about hemophiliacs? Exactly. My stepdad is no longer allowed to donate blood because he is currently on daily medication against glaucoma.

It's all about those receiving the blood, and minimizing the risk that they get blood that may make them sick. It's better that they refuse to let 100 healthy people donate blood because they are in a high risk group, than have one blood donor infect many patients with HIV, Hepatitis, or even just an ordinary infection from a small cut - a sick person doesn't usually have the best immune defence and is more susceptible to infections. The blood banks try their best, and it is better they err on the side of caution. Period.

[Deja Q]

19. Just because you're gay - even being celibate won't cut ice with them.

[LisaL]

21. No, it's not true.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

30. Hypno, read my post, #29 above. It has nothing to do with orientation,

it has everything to do with your actual activity. The screening questions are linked, and listed.

[Bluebear]

33. Heterosexuals make up the majority of cases in Africa

Do any of the questions ask if the donor has had sex in Africa?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

39. It does ask about leaving the country

[Bluebear]

44. My, you really have boned up on the subject!

Thanks so much for bringing this to everyone's attention!

[Dragonbreathp9d]

50. Thats my job!

[johnnie]

48. I think so

I looked all this up (before your question).

You should not give blood if:

1 You've already given blood in the last 12 weeks (normally, you must wait 16 weeks).
2 You have a chesty cough, sore throat or active cold sore (although the end of a cold is OK).
3 You're currently taking antibiotics or you have just finished a course within the last seven days.
4 You've had hepatitis or jaundice in the last 12 months.
5 You've had ear or body piercing or tattoos in the last 6 months.
6 You've had acupuncture in the last 6 months outside the NHS (unless you can produce the approved certificate from your acupuncturist or physiotherapist).
7 A member of your family (parent, brother, sister or child) has suffered with CJD (Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease).
8 You've ever received human pituitary extract (which was used in some growth hormone or fertility treatments before 1985).
9 You have received blood or think you may have received blood during the course of any medical treatment or procedure in the UK since 1st January 1980.

You may not be able to give blood if:

1 You've had a serious illness or major surgery in the past or are currently on medication. Please discuss this with the clinical staff. The reason you're taking medicines may prevent you from donating.
2 You’ve had complicated dental work. Simple fillings are OK after 24 hours, as are simple extractions after 7 days.
3 You've been in contact with an infectious disease or have been given certain immunisations in the last four weeks.
4 You're presently on a hospital waiting list or undergoing medical tests.
5 You do not weigh over 50kgs (7st 12).

If you are unsure please call our 24 hour donor helpline on 0845 7 711 711.

Pregnancy

You should not give blood if you are pregnant or you are a woman who has had a baby in the last 9 months.

Travel abroad

Please wait 6 months after returning from a malarial area before giving blood. Please also tell us if you have visited Central/South America at any time. (Those who've had Malaria, or an undiagnosed illness associated with travel, may not however be able to give blood.)

If you are unsure please call our 24 hour donor helpline on 0845 7 711 711.

West Nile Virus

Have you been to or plan to go to CANADA or the UNITED STATES this Summer? If yes, please click here, as it might affect you giving blood.



The special problem of HIV and Hepatitis viruses

• Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C.
• Infected blood isn't used in transfusions but our test may not always detect the early stages of viral infection.
• The chance of infected blood getting past our screening tests is very small, but we rely on your help and co-operation.
• People who carry these viruses may feel healthy for many years.

You should never give blood if:

1 You carry the hepatitis B virus, the hepatitis C virus or the HIV virus.
2 You're a man who's had sex with another man, even "safe sex" using a condom.
3 You've ever worked as a prostitute.
4 You've ever injected yourself with drugs - even once.

You should not give blood for 12 months after sex with:

1 A man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female).
2 A prostitute.
3 Anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs.
4 Anyone with haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder who has received clotting factor concentrates.
5 Anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common. This includes countries in Africa.




On edit: I don't know what the actual questions are on the form.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

54. Sounds about right

Cant swear to it but that sounds pretty much like what we had

[johnnie]

58. If you read through it all

There are many different risks. I think they try to limit the high risks because they still have to check every donation and it probably would cost a fortune.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, it is just what I think as to why they have so many different risk factors.

[LisaL]

53. Yes, and if you did, you are not allowed to donate.

[Misunderestimator]

134. "Sex—For men: Had sex even once with another male since 1977"

It doesn't ask if it was protected, or unprotected, or anal, or oral? Just asks if you had sex with another man even ONCE in the past THIRTY years. Yeah, right... it's not about orientation at all.

[Occulus]

45. "Honesty is the worst policy."

If you are honest in our world, you WILL be punished. Period.

There is no reward for honesty; there is only reward for DIShonesty. Tell your friend to lie, cheat, and steal, and he will go very very very very very far in life.

:cry:

[LisaL]

57. Considering people who donate blood want to help someone,

why should they lie so they can put other persons at risk?

[johnnie]

63. I was going to say about the same thing

Sometimes things aren't always about being a bigot either.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

65. No, sometimes just being ignorant

[johnnie]

67. What ignorance? n/t

[Dragonbreathp9d]

75. In thinking Gay sex = HIV

[johnnie]

82. What is unfortunate is that they go by probability

I would rather that more funding is made available to find a cure.

[SPKrazy]

92. Come on now

:rofl:

what's your point?

[johnnie]

94. I was making the same point as you have been

I just don't say it as well as you I guess. I was agreeing with what you were saying and then you go and make an ass out of yourself. :thumbsup:

[SPKrazy]

95. Yeah, Right

:nopity:

you couldn't be making the same point as I was making because I DISAGREE with you!

[johnnie]

98. Tell me what you disagree with

:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

100. Actually I thought you were agreeing also, LOL, but the post was a bit

disjointed.

[johnnie]

103. I try to do the best I can

My thoughts are disjointed usually, so I'm told..Lol.

That has happened to me more times on here than I care to remember, and it happens in real life too. If I read down that bit of the thread, it seems to me I was trying to make the same point as the person who thought it was imperative to do that silly laughing guy at me.

Oh well. :shrug:

[SPKrazy]

102. I Disagree That It Is Too Bad They Use Probabilities

Probabilities are how they screen people out who are at high risk

Gay Men are at high risk

Heterosexual women are at high risk according to your pie chart

I think that this is either because a) they are counting heterosexual women who are promiscuous; b) they are counting heterosexual women with promiscuous heterosexual or bisexual partners

Screening out anyone at high risk is good

I didn't get that you were saying that

that is what I'm saying

[johnnie]

104. Well, I said "unfortunately"

Meaning that it is unfortunate that it has to be that way. I would rather see them find a cure.

I am guessing that I have to start writing a book on here each time I write a post. Like I said up there though ^.. It's normal for me to be questioned on my logic and the way I express it.

Damn that brain of mine..lol.

[Solon]

115. According to your chart this statement...

2 You're a man who's had sex with another man, even "safe sex" using a condom. Should actually read Anyone who has ever had sex with another man, even if with a condom, regardless of whether you are male or female.

Otherwise it is just discrimination, make sure that all people who have had sexual contact with men, regardless of sexuality, not donate blood, period. Seems simple to me.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

118. No, because men who have had sex with other men, esp. since 1977,

are the higher risk group.

That's why in public health and epidemiology literature, there is a specific term, MSM (men who have sex with men) for it in the studies.

[Solon]

121. Heterosexual women are the higher risk group...

Look at the chart, there is almost a 20 point difference between the two. 63% of male HIV victims got it through sex with men, whereas 79% of female HIV victims got it through sex with men. Both are high risk groups and should be treated EQUALLY when it comes to blood donations.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

122. There are almost 3 times as many male as female cases. Do you think

that translates to "both are high risk groups and should be treated equally"?

(on edit, in the graph you are referring to)

[Solon]

124. Give it time and it will equalize, I would think...

But then again, I don't really understand having people banned for a LIFETIME for having sex in a "high risk" category once during that lifetime. If a guy had sex with another guy at let's say 15 years of age, joins the priesthood at 18, and has no sexual contact with anyone since that one sexual experience, are they still really high risk? Even decades afterwards? I know HIV sometimes doesn't become symptomatic for decades, but it could still be detected in people before it turns into AIDS.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

125. You pose a good question.. the answer is, if we could rely on people to

be perfectly honest, of course there wouldn't be these blanket bans.

Presumably there was simply a determination that people who said "yes" to the screening question (say, had sex with a man since 1977, even once) were much more likely to be HIV or hepatitis B/C positive, regardless if they said it was only once, or whatever.

Ideally screening questions like this should be based on studies. You take a thousand people, have them answer the questionnaire. No one is donating blood you are just testing them every month for a year for the various blood borne diseases. You determine which "yes" answers are associated with a higher incidence of positive tests, and depending on how much higher risk you determine to be a cutoff, use those questions as your screening criteria.

[Solon]

127. Thats the problem with blanket bans...

You can't really trust anyone, not really, plus there is no guarantee for anything. The same questionnaire also says that women who had sex with men that had sex with men themselves cannot donate blood for 12 months. The major point here is that for many women, even married ones, there is no way to answer such a question since no one is omniscience unless it is an open relationship. Same could be said for men having sex with prostitutes, and their significant others, along with many other high risk behaviors.

The safest bet would be to either strap all donors to a lie detector for the questionnaire, or just let lesbians donate(lowest blood borne disease risk).

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

128. I'm good with the lesbians only, heh. Seriously. It's controversial

which screens to use also. For instance the CDC data shows a much higher prevalence of HIV among African Americans, but this is not a screen. Is it because it's just too incendiary, politically? Or is it because the degree of relative risk is still less than men who have sex with men or injection drug users? etc. etc.

I haven't reviewed the data to draw a conclusion...

[johnnie]

119. I agree

But I didn't create that chart or the guidelines for donating blood.

[eallen]

143. It's "unfortunate" that blood banks use math and science???

Yes, there should be more funding for research into a cure for AIDS. I suspect if you polled the people involved with bloodbanks, you would find almost unanimous support on that proposition. They, unfortunately, don't make that decision. They do make decisions and practice procedures to keep blood supplies safe. Yes, they use probability. Yes, that includes turning away many donors whose blood is perfectly good.

Speaking as someone with a close relative who has received dozens of units of blood, and who is myself a regular donor, and who has naturally been turned down a couple of times, I will say again: you are not being morally judged when you are turned down for donation. That just doesn't enter into it at all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. Being unable to donate blood isn't being punished

Being forbidden from *receiving* blood would be a punishment.

[Rocknrule]

68. Yes, anal sex is gross and causes alot of diseases...

but straight people do it too. Why all the bigotry?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

71. The point is it doesnt cause diseases

any more than straight sex

[socialista]

69. Ask yourself this question .

Would you have a blood transfusion with your friends blood?

[sniffa]

70. but she couLd catch gay that way

[Bluebear]

73. I believe it's called "the gay"

What a bunch of distracting offensive garbage this has been!

[LisaL]

78. For whatever reason, it only bothers you that gays aren't allowed

to donate? Why not people with tattoos, people who lived in Britain, etc? All they do is try to prevent someone belonging to high risk group from donating blood.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

80. I'm arguing that being gay is NOT high risk

[SPKrazy]

99. Well You're Wrong!

so get over yourself

[Dragonbreathp9d]

72. Damn skippy I would

[SPKrazy]

76. Condoms aren't 100%

And anal intercourse is very risky behavior because of tearing.

what more can I say

Except that they probably don't do a good enough job of screening out people in the first place.

It costs money to test the blood.

It takes time to draw the blood.

Why waste time and money on a risk?

I was exposed to hepatitis A once and wasn't allowed to donate

I have no problem with it.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

77. Being exposed

and being told, basically, that you have been exposed, whether you have or not, is completely different

[SPKrazy]

83. Risk is risk

why waste time with drawing the blood if the chances are higher that it will be positive than it would otherwise (regardless of the nature of the risk ie IV drug use, homosexual relations, Hep B, Hep C, Hep anything, or other conditions.)

[Bluebear]

81. Anal intercourse is not practiced by all gay men.

Many heterosexuals think that is the case, but it isn't. Just fyi.

I think that most gay men realize they are not candidates for blood donation, I'm sorry it came as a surprise to this young person. I can only imagine how it was handled.

[SPKrazy]

84. At blood drives they usually ask you if you have had

sex with another man (if you are a man)

all the high risk categories

no all gays don't have anal intercourse

and I'm sure that there are gays that donate without telling them they are gay

It's good that it is possible to test the blood, although that isn't 100% effective either

I'm all for safety

[Ilsa]

89. When blood is tested, not every sample is tested individually

for HIV, last I heard, unless it was changed. They will aggregate several samples and test the entire sample. If it shows up positive, then the individual units get tested.

If someone has a very low load or isn't presenting at all, then it won't show up and numerous other people could get the virus.

I've been deferred before for low HCT, low weight, low BP, recent illness.

It is more important to protect the sick recipient than allow a donation.

[Bluebear]

93. All blood donated at Red Cross blood centers nationwide is screened

Red Cross NTL's are located in Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Charlotte, NC; Detroit, MI; Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR; St. Louis, MO; and St. Paul, MN. Each has the capacity to test up to 1.2 million samples a year. Should a natural disaster or other event temporarily close one NTL, testing can be transferred to another site, so that the blood supply will not be disrupted.

Every blood donation is screened using these tests to reduce the risk of disease transmission:
Disease Test Implemented
HIV/AIDS Anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 and
HIV-1 p24 Antigen HIV-1 1985,
HIV-2 1992,
HIV Antigen 1996
Hepatitis B Hepatitis B Surface Antigen
and Hepatitis B Core Antibody 1971
1987
Hepatitis C Anti-HCV 1990
Hepatitis ALT (Alanine Aminotransferase, liver enzyme) 1986
Syphilis Serologic test for syphilis 1948
Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV) HTLV-I/II

http://www.redcrossalabama.org/tests.htm

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

107. Yes, and the reason for the questionnaire screening is because high risk

donors (all types) have a higher odds of donating a "false negative" unit during a "window period" early in infection, as I mentioned earlier. Despite testing they still decrease the infection transmission rate with the questionnaire.

[Ilsa]

109. But are they tested in batches or individually, with a positive

batch result causing a more detail screening?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

112. Each unit is tested.

[Ilsa]

120. That's good news. They used to only do the batch testing at

some blood and tissue centers. Thanks.

[pinto]

113. My understanding is that all donated blood is screened.

[SPKrazy]

97. Have Sex With Whoever, Whenever, or Whatever

as long as they are consenting adults


Just don't expect to be able to donate blood if you don't meet the requirements for whatever reason

[FreedomAngel82]

105. How sad

In some small way I do see where they are coming from because, as you said disease and all, but isn't there some way he could've gotten the okay from a doctor or something?

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. They don't reject if simply because the donor is gay

They only do if the donar is a man, and has sex with another man since 1977.

[Bridget Burke]

136. I'd like to agree with those who pointed out the truth

The questionnaire you complete before giving blood covers many risk factors. Blood is tested, but there is a margin of error.

Any blood donor will be familiar with the procedure. Surely, I'm not the only one here who's given blood.

[FruityNuts]

138. I don't have a problem with this

I'm gay but I don't have a problem with using the male-to-male sex question in their screening process. There was a known problem with that in the 80's and it doesn't hurt my feelings to be asked not give blood. If they REALLY REALLY need blood they'll loosen the restrictions and screen the blood through medical means.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

144. All blood IS screened thru "medical means" ALSO. The reason for

the questionnaire screening is, that a small number of units carry viruses DESPITE "testing negative", mainly because the donor is newly infected and has not produced antibodies yet. Since all units are tested now, this is pretty much where all the transfusion-transmitted infections come from these days.

By screening the donor pool BEFORE donation, the blood banks are trying to further decrease the number of "false negative" units.

They DO reevaluate the screening procedures over time, that's why there's exclusionary criteria related to British mad cow disease as well, although the horse may be out of that particular barn by now.

[Coastie for Truth]

140. The Blood Banks and Hospitals Lost Law Suits over Tainted Blood

So the INSURANCE MAFIA came in and said "In order to protect "US" (your friendly insurance carrier) you will not do this..."

You know the INSURANCE MAFIA business model?

1. They take your money (premiums) and say "if the insured event happens we will make you whole."
2. The "insured event" happens.
3. They don't pay.
4. You sue them.
5. They run to the Legislatute, crying "frivolous law suits are breaking us."

And their protectors include Bush, Santorum, Frist.