Straight man who "appeared gay" rejected for blood donation

[Duct Tape]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/17/straight-man-who-appeared-gay-rejected-for-blood-donation/

Twenty-two-year-old Aaron Pace was trying to donate blood and plasma at a local blood center in Gary, Indiana, when he was informed in an interview during the screening process that he was ineligible to give blood because he "appears to be a homosexual".

Because of a 1983 measure adopted by the Food and Drug Administration, all men who have had sex with another man since 1977 are banned from giving blood. Workers at Bio-Blood Components, Incorporated assumed that Pace was gay, apparently based on his "looks, character, and behavior".

Pace, who is not gay, is understandably miffed. He says he was "humiliated and embarrassed". He also says, "It's not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can't. And I'm not even a homosexual."

The FDA law came about as a result of fears about HIV and the fact that no test existed in 1983 to screen donated blood for the presence of the virus. Now all donated blood is tested for HIV as well as Hepatitis A, B, and C. Still, the law remains in place, in spite of the fact that most places in the United States are facing critical blood shortages.

Bio-Blood, Incorporated has declined to comment on the matter.

[Maccagirl]

1. Would that be Dana Carvey as "The Effeminate Heterosexual"

from SNL? The blood center had no comment-obviously no brains either.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

23. OMG! That's The First Thought I Had Too! It Must Have Been "Lyle, The Effeminate Heterosexual"!

I loved that skit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXp4j1agK7Q

WHAT?!?!? That's In-THANE!!!

[brewens]

33. Whatever action they took with the staff involved is probably

confidential. That was no doubt investigated. I guarantee you it would be at the center I work for. There is no way it is their policy to let staff guess at who to reject based on appearance for whatever reason.

I have registered donors that are very old that I really didn't think it would be a good idea for them to donate. As long as they pass the screening which includes a mini physical there is no age limit. I have been surprised when they came off the bus smiling with the bandage on their arm.

[saras]

2. The connection between "homosexual" and "had sex with a man since 1997" is tenuous at best

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Not to the FDA it isn't.

They make the rules regarding blood donors.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the screening question was "sex with a man since 1977"

rather than placing the burden on clinic staff to decide that you're a homosexual.

IIRC from the days when I was doing literature reviews on AIDS, the reason that question was used rather than self-identification is that it is a more accurate screen because there are men who engage in sexual relations with other men without self-identifying as gay or bisexual. The clinic staff deciding based on looks is so fraught with error that I doubt it was ever considered a primary screen by the CDC.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

28. You are correct; that is the screening question.

The staff cannot decide who's eligible based on how the donor looks. Period.

[saras]

50. Absolutely. Simple mistake. Simple problem. Simple fix. Obey the law. Ask the screening question.

[dsc]

5. actually it is since 1977

[yourout]

3. I guess Bachmann's hubby won't be donating anytime soon.

[Odin2005]

6. I've been called gay constantly because I'm not stereotypically "masculine" in my behavior.

:banghead:

[Snoutport]

39. When I came out at work people were shocked...I don't act gay enough

lol...so we balance each other out.

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Wow - I had no clue that regulation was out there.

1977? Seriously?

[AlabamaLibrul]

8. They ask me Every. Single. Time. I give blood.

Maybe they're hoping one of these times I slip up and confess to big fat gay relations sometime between 1977 and now.

[kick-ass-bob]

47. Of course they ask every time.

It's the FDA requirement.

A dumbass one, but still required. Every. Single. Time.

[Bluebear]

9. totally outrageous policy

Every donation is screened anyhow.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. True, every donation is screened, and very carefully.

But those tests are not perfect, and a very newly infected person might slip past...

People have died from infected blood.

[brewens]

12. One of the reasons for not allowing "high risk" donors is the

risk to our staff. The odds are low but accidents do happen. Accidental needle sticks or splashes in the eyes. We have the required protective equipment but it can happen. They don't want us drawing a potentially HIV or hepatitis infected donor.

After the blood draw their donation is handled by staff, commercial couriers and lab technicians before testing is done. You can also have leaking units or broken bags in transit. In five years I've only encountered one leaking unit. There have been no accidents on any mobile blood drives that I have been on. There have been a few minor squirts and drips that were cleaned up according to our procedures with no risk to anyone.

[Fearless]

20. HIV rate: 989 per 100,000 gay/bi men vs. 12 per 100,000 other men. One in a THOUSAND gay men.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf



How often does a nurse prick themselves? 1 in a thousand again? How likely is it that a prick of an HIV infected needle will give you HIV? Maybe 1 in a thousand again? We're talking about a literally ONE IN A MILLION risk. The risk is a non-factor. You're more likely to contract hepatitis or herpes by coming in contact with blood.

[brewens]

22. That is probably correct. We follows our procedures and FDA

regulations. As far as I know the FDA relies on CDC data. We can't do anything about it.

The blood center people that rejected the guy for appearing to be gay were probably idiots. I seriously doubt that blood center has any guidelines to deny someone for "appearing" to be gay.

[FreeState]

29. In 2003 the transmition rate from a transfusion was 1 in 1.4 million

The policy is homophobic and is not needed.

[brewens]

31. That rate is with the existing restrictions. The issue is what it would

be if that changed. Anyone would have to recognize that the transmit ion rate would go up if more HIV infected people were allowed to donate. I have no clue how much it would go up. Increasing the risk might be unacceptable to many people but I don't think that makes them homophobic.

[FreeState]

32. Gay does not equal HIV+, allowing HIV negative gay men donate would not change a thing n/t

[brewens]

34. 100% of HIV positive gay men were once HIV negative. How

many knew they were infected at the moment it happened (zero?) or even within the next few days or couple of weeks (very few?)? That is where the risk of having a positive donor comes from or getting a contaminated unit in the system.

No risk at all from gay men that are HIV negative in a steady relationship I'm sure. That does not include all gay men though. The CDC says rates have been rising and that is where the risk is. It's happening somehow.

[Fearless]

52. 100% of HIV postive STRAIGHT MEN were also negative once.

[FreeState]

54. Yep -- someone's slip is showing n/t

[brewens]

55. Yeah, but the straight guy should have answered yes to whatever

risky behavior may have resulted in his being exposed, had he attempted to donate blood. IV drug use, paying for sex or whatever. That would also get the straight guy deferred but not permanently.

It's the CDC that claims gay or bisexual men are 44 times more likely to be infected with HIV. That's why the FDA considers them to be a higher risk. I said before that it's okay with me if they change the rules. Still, the way it stands the male/male sex would be a one year deferral.

[Behind the Aegis]

58. You do realize how HIV is passed, yes?

HIV ain't just for junkies and fags, no more!

[brewens]

59. "Or whatever" in the above post would also cover sex with

anyone that is HIV positive. Also a risky behavior covered by the blood center questionnaire. Not that a straight guy would always be aware of that, but if he is, he would be deferred if he answered yes to that one. We have annual blood born pathogen training that is mandatory.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

60. And the same "or whatever" should apply to gays. Not all of us carry the virus.

[Fearless]

62. +10000... In fact 999 of 1000 DON'T!

[Fearless]

61. Being gay does not make you at a higher risk for HIV!

Engaging in unsafe behavior does! Those who engage in unsafe behavior shouldn't give blood. This is fact. Those who are gay and those who engage in unsafe behavior are NOT mutually inclusive nor exclusive. A vast majority of gay men are safe, contrary to apparent belief.

ADDITIONALLY, all blood is tested for HIV and MANY diseases BEFORE being used. These tests are ~100% foolproof.

[AlabamaLibrul]

35. I find this post very troubling

It seems to suggest that allowing gay people to donate means allowing HIV+ people to donate.

Like nobody else has ever had HIV or something -- and like there are no HIV- gay people.

[brewens]

42. The questionnaire has several questions designed to determine

if prospective donors are at high risk for HIV and/or hepatitis, not just gay people. The males/male sex is just one of those. IV drug use and accepting money or drugs for sex are a couple other things they ask about.

I saw 1 in 1.4 million quoted on here as the HIV transmission rate through blood transfusion. That is about what I have always seen. Those odds sound pretty good to me and I wouldn't hesitate to allow myself to get a transfusion if I got to decide. I know I wouldn't want to be the one to make the call that might increase the transmission rate.

Evidently the FDA thinks that relaxing the restrictions would allow a few more infected units to slip through. No one would want that.

[krispos42]

38. The issue is not letting HIV-infected people give blood.

It's about letting gay people give blood.

Obviously, if a person KNOWS they have HIV, they almost certainly won't give blood. I follow that rule; I don't give blood because about 15 months after my ex and I separated she tested positive for HIV. I got tested immediately, and showed up clean. However, because I can't say with reasonable certainly that I haven't had sex with somebody who had HIV, I don't go anymore.


Of course, people can lie, too, so that's not the issue.


So we're really talking about honest people that don't, to their knowledge, have HIV being able to give blood.

[jtuck004]

57. My friend who was a hemophiliac from birth would probably disagree with you,

since he became HIV+ from his platelet infusions in his 20's. (Around the 70's?).

He's gone now, but for a kid who fought the hemophilia from birth, long after the medical folks told him he wouldn't get out of childhood, it wrecked his life in more ways than one.

He's gone now, but I suspect he would have liked effective screening of some kind, something that worked better than what didn't.

Just sayin...

[dsc]

25. that is nothing short of absurd

If it were that, which were the problem gays would have to have their own hospitals, which we, of course, don't. You are supposed to treat all blood, and all patients, as if they might be infected with something.

[brewens]

30. Minimizing risk is absurd? We do follow procedures and treat

all donors and units as if is potentially infected. The screening process only eliminates donors that tell us they are higher risk. That includes people that have recently had tattoos and piercings. Most potential donors that are denied actually don't get upset. They just didn't realize whatever the issue was a problem.

I don't have a problem with the FDA allowing gay men to donate but don't hold your breath. Even if they do, it would probably still be a one year deferral for male on male sexual contact. I can't see where many people would abstain from sex for a whole year just to donate blood.

[Joe the Revelator]

36. Blatent discrimination is absurd.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. And that can only be gay people?

HIV is the number one killer of African American women aged 18-34. For example.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. I don't understand your question.

Every unit of blood, or other blood products, like plasma, is screened. No matter who the donor is.

EVERY infected product is discarded.

[brewens]

24. There are a number of sexual history questions that can get

people deferred, either permanently or for shorter periods. Intravenous drug use, sex with IV drug users, women having sex with men that have had male on male sexual contact, sex with people with hepatitis and living with someone with hepatitis.

Some of those are permanently deferred but that can be removed one year after the high risk behavior stops.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Well Peggy?

What about the other 'high risk' groups that are allowed to donate? HMMMMMMMM?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I don't make the rules. The FDA does.

[Bluebear]

40. U.S. Senate Kerry Calls on FDA to Lift Longstanding Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood Read more: http:/

Just for a different perspective....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/kerry-calls-fda-lift-longstanding-ban-gay-men-donating-blood/

Sen. John Kerry called on the government Thursday to abolish a "discriminatory" law that bars homosexual men in the U.S. from donating blood, saying "not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban."

In a letter sent to the Food and Drug Administration, Kerry, D-Mass., along with a host of other Democrats, urged Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to change existing law that bars gay men from giving blood.

Kerry also called on the FDA to review its donor screening questionnaire to ensure a healthy blood supply.

"A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end, just as last year we ended the travel ban against those with HIV," Kerry said in a statement on Thursday.

Under the current law, which went into effect in 1983, an

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/kerry-calls-fda-lift-longstanding-ban-gay-men-donating-blood#ixzz1SRcBE1ig

[CaliforniaPeggy]

44. The FDA can be really hidebound.

I hope that they can be brought into the 21st century.

Thanks for the link!

[brewens]

49. I've worked blood drives with campus Gay Straight Alliance

groups sponsoring us. They even circulated their petition to the FDA during them. I recommended to our recruiter that we don't do that again. It tended to create debate at the registration desk. While I have nothing at all against the FDA changing the rules and said so to several people asking me questions, I ran into a few that seemed to refuse to take yes for an answer. I felt like it was coming close to turning into a protest against the blood drive.

My job is to help run blood drives and collect as many units as possible. We can do that without helping to promote a petition against our governing agency.

[Bluebear]

51. 'without helping to promote a petition against our governing agency.' - whatever.

[muffin1]

48. But you are allowed to comment on how unfair it is.

[dionysus]

17. i dont think gay folks are any more likely to have AIDS than anyone else.

:shrug:

[muffin1]

45. But one doesn't have to be gay to be 'newly infected'.

[brewens]

10. That might get someone fired at the blood center I work for.

They would at least get a good ass chewing. Unless the prospective donor answered yes to the question regarding sexual contact with males, he would be eligible to donate. As long as he met all the other criteria anyway. A staff member simply thinking he appeared to be gay wouldn't mean anything.

[freshwest]

18. How can you tell if someone is gay, sexually active or even homeless? And for that matter...

If it's *all* being *tested,* as the law requires, why would the opinion of the person in the office matter, much less the claims of the person donating blood?

Is it science, is it *tested,* or is it all bull manure? This is another hold over from the days of the RW god, Ronnie Raygun.

Take the blood, test and discard if found infected. There should not even be a questionnaire, if the *test* is truly able to determine if the blood is good. AND if they have any real intention to *test.*

It aruges the point that they were ever going to *test* the blood if they intend to go with hearsay.

:spank:


Maybe they are trying to weasel out of doing the *test?* I'd find that donation center to be a bit shady for trying to take a shortcut!

This should not be a civil rights matter, it should be pure scientific examination of the product being bought and sold. You can't regulate people's words or their behaviors.

These turkeys should just do the tests which are regulated. I really believe someone is trying to make a profit and do this on the cheap and evaluate the safety of the blood without testing. IMHO.

:rant:

[brewens]

26. All blood centers collecting blood to be processed into units

that are transfused to patients are not for profit. The FDA mandates that.

All the studies show that people willing to donate blood tend to be honest when answering the questionnaire. In five years our blood center has found one unit out of thousands to be HIV positive. That donor had used us for testing because he suspected he was infected. He admitted that to out staff physician. That is something we strongly discourage.

The questionnaire is to weed out high risk donors. We don't want our staff exposed so testing after the fact doesn't prevent that. Actually it's not what we want, the FDA mandates that too.

[Fearless]

19. This rule was created before there was a ~100% accurate HIV test...

Now all blood is tested before being used for a variety of blood-born illnesses. This matter is complete bull sh*t.


"Donated blood is routinely screened for H.I.V. and other infectious agents. The F.D.A. employs multiple safeguards, including donor evaluations and computerized blood testing, to ensure that infected blood is not distributed. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/health/03blood.html

[Joe the Revelator]

37. It stays because evangelicals would rather die....

Than have 'gay' blood saving their lives.

[Fearless]

53. Reminds me of an All in the Family episode where Archie gets blood...

From a black woman.

[brewens]

43. "including donor evaluations". That is exactly what the issue is

that you quoted to back up your opinion. The questionnaire is part of the evaluation. Deferring people that answer yes to the male/male sex question is one of the multiple safeguards you quote.

[Renew Deal]

27. Is that part of their procedure?

I've given blood many times before and it always depends on the answers I give on the form.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. More homophobia in action.

[sarcasmo]

46. Time for Mr. Pace to Lawyer up.

[nolabels]

56. I don't know what it's about but people who work in the blood drawing......

sometimes seem to have a certain arrogance about them. Like they are somehow better because they are taking the blood rather than giving it