I am just really conflicted about this. I know the supply of blood products can get to critical levels and that the blood gets screened anyway for diseases and that just because you are gay doesn't mean you are hiv+. So a large part of me says that it's an unnecessary and outdated edict put forth by the FDA 30-some years ago. But I also understand the basis of concern and of course I have a problem with people lying. The lying is probably bothering me more than anything else.
Is it time for the FDA to put this rule to rest? Wouldn't it help the already streeched thin blood supply? Or is the overall picture of the risky lifestyle of homosexual men too much of a liability.
LOL... I bet you're a hoot at a party :) Research/Neurology says a lot (and I bet it's incredibly interesting- I actually loved working neuro)- but it's ok to not get all cerebral (da da dum...:) ).
We're just exchanging opinions based on what we see.... I guess I don't look at stats enough- just what's out there in 3D. :)
the thread title is misleading as is the title of the linked article.
...recently visited bio-blood components inc., in gary, which pays up to $40 for blood and plasma donations.
it does bring up 2 good points:
(1) this was a place where people sell their blood products. i would think as a private business they can pick and choose who they want to buy from.
and
(2)
even though the blood bank sounds like it is engaging in a discriminatory practice, it would only be following the law by rejecting pace were he gay. in 1983, amid the early panic over aids, the food and drug administration banned all men who had had sex with other men since 1977 from giving blood. at that time, there were no effective screening tests to identify hiv-positive blood.
is it time for the fda to put this rule to rest? wouldn't it help the already streeched thin blood supply? or is the overall picture of the risky lifestyle of homosexual men too much of a liability.
just last year the fda did try to 'put it to rest', dshs opted to maintain the rule. from the article you linked:
and yet, last year, the department of health and human services [color=#005790]decided to maintain the policy--though an fda committee called it "sub-optimal," and suggested that it would be better to develop a screening system based on individual behavior, not broad characteristics like sexuality.
what we don't know is if a new screening system is in the works.
Specializes in Infectious Disease, Neuro, Research.
LOL... I bet you're a hoot at a party :) Research/Neurology says a lot (and I bet it's incredibly interesting- I actually loved working neuro)- but it's ok to not get all cerebral (da da dum...:) ).
We're just exchanging opinions based on what we see.... I guess I don't look at stats enough- just what's out there in 3D. :)
Are you in law school ??? You'd be good.
Ha! Neither the patience for hoop-jumping, nor the money!
Yeah, I'm biased; I HATE news reports, political actions, etc., where the reason for action is, "its for the children...", or, "this is a brutally underserved/discriminated/etc., group..." I have no problem being in touch with the feeling(s), but bad science and knee-jerk reaction(s) invariably end up with people being hurt or dead.
Fundamentally, my issue is that this is a choice. If one really desires to help society, one surrenders the high risk behavior for the greater good. How can we be intellectually honest stating that we need to help people, while engaging in persoanl acts that make our contribution a risk, rather than a free gift?
I hold out two hands- in one, orificenic, in the other, life-saving serum. My friend holds life in both hands. Does society have the right to force my offering upon others so that I may have the "right" of giving, or should both society and I defer to my friend? Where is the social responsibility- and genuine compassion?
Donating blood is different from selling blood or plasma. Blood banks don't offer compensation any more, to eliminate the financial incentive to lie about risk behaviors. I know that in Mississippi it is illegal to sell blood or blood products for human use; plasma that is used for manufacturing purposes is still paid for, everything else is strictly volunteer. Even the t-shirts or other freebies that are given to donors at blood drives have to be worth below a certain amount.
The questions that are asked as part of the screening cover sexual activity, drug use/needle sharing, tattoos, travel to high-risk locations, and previous infections with certain parasites. There's a reason for each question, it's not just because the blood services want to ask.
Blood is big business. Yes, we see the community service aspects of giving, and we see the patient benefits in receiving, but in between those two ends, blood represents a chunk of change. The interview process takes a great deal of time compared to the donation process, and it ties up employees who have to be paid for that additional time. If it were expedient, the blood services would do away with the interview altogether. Instead, they adapt and update the questions frequently to reflect the latest information available about activities that could influence the risk of transmission.
Both homosexual activity and heterosexual activity are included in the screening. Yes, the blood is tested for everything, but the screening provides some overkill in the direction of decreased risk. Does it suck that a whole segment of the population is excluded, even when healthy? Yes it does. Do I want that changed? No I don't. I love my gay friends. I want to help and protect and enjoy them all the days of my life. But I don't want them to give blood. It's not a sore point with them, either, because we talked about it when I worked at a blood center during nursing school. But even if it were a sore point, and there were hard feelings because of it, I still wouldn't want them to donate.
Isn't there a period during early HIV infection where the donor's blood would not test positive for HIV because the infected donor had not yet begun producing the telltale antibodies?
For this reason, it could be seen as being cautious to exclude those high risk populations. Those populations would not be limited to homosexuals, but all individuals in high risk groups.
I'll be honest...I agree with your gay friend that he SHOULD like on the application.
You know why?
They don't ask on the application if you are sexually promiscious!
They don't ask if you are a prostitute!
They don't ask if you are a swinger!
The homosexual question is a form of UNWARRANTED discrimination. We have tests for that now and no blood donation, from someone straight or gay, is without risk.
Isn't there a period during early HIV infection where the donor's blood would not test positive for HIV because the infected donor had not yet begun producing the telltale antibodies?
For this reason, it could be seen as being cautious to exclude those high risk populations. Those populations would not be limited to homosexuals, but all individuals in high risk groups.
I'll be honest...I agree with your gay friend that he SHOULD like on the application.
You know why?
They don't ask on the application if you are sexually promiscious!
They don't ask if you are a prostitute!
They don't ask if you are a swinger!
The homosexual question is a form of UNWARRANTED discrimination. We have tests for that now and no blood donation, from someone straight or gay, is without risk.
If they ask the first question, they probably wouldn't need to ask the second and third as they would be redundant.
Are you sure they don't ask if you have had multiple sex partners? If not, they should, just as they ask if you are an IV drug user.
It's just to save money. If the only question they asked was "have you had homosexual intercourse" then I would understand. However, it's not... they also ask if you've had unprotected sex (with anyone), been out of the country, been exposed to this that and the other. Yes, they test all of the donations, but if they already know ahead of time that a donor could be at risk, then why waste the money to have it tested? It's not profiling... it's easier to contact HIV/AIDS through homosexual intercourse because your orifice tears easier than your lady parts, therefore swapping blood is more common. The question isn't "are you gay?" Heck, half the college kids these days think trying things in bed is the norm... someone could tell you they're straight and then tell you they've had sex with the same gender lol. The world is way too pc these days.
Isn't there a period during early HIV infection where the donor's blood would not test positive for HIV because the infected donor had not yet begun producing the telltale antibodies?
For this reason, it could be seen as being cautious to exclude those high risk populations. Those populations would not be limited to homosexuals, but all individuals in high risk groups.
MY POINT EXACTLY!!!
This was my first thought when starting to read this thread. I'm not an HIV/AIDS expert, but I do know that when there is a suspected transmission, a person needs to be tested periodically for something like 6 months or thereabout. Such being the case, it's logical that HIV might not be detected in donated blood even if it were HIV+. Therefore the necessity to screen for homosexuality to eliminate as many potential risks as possible.
Whispera- OMG- that is so nuts that a hangnail got that sort of response.
I'd always understood that blood donations were tested for HIV, HepB, HepC.....is this not the case? After all of the transfusions I got last year, I wonder if I should be tested (I still am on oral chemo, and get monthly liver/kidney/basic chem done....). People actually find out from blood donation tests that they have stuff going on- so they must be doing something...
I also know the chance of getting something from a transfusion is minimal....
But the risk of transmission through blood transfusions is not low in and of itself; it's low due to diligent testing.
xtxrn, ASN, RN
4,267 Posts
LOL... I bet you're a hoot at a party :) Research/Neurology says a lot (and I bet it's incredibly interesting- I actually loved working neuro)- but it's ok to not get all cerebral (da da dum...:) ).
We're just exchanging opinions based on what we see.... I guess I don't look at stats enough- just what's out there in 3D. :)
Are you in law school ??? You'd be good.