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 So a large part of me says that it's an unnecessary and outdated edict put forth by the FDA 30-some years ago.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.
....as if heterosexuals, even ones that have one sexual partner, don't contract hiv.
that is how outdated the questionaire is.
i just love how they say, "prior to 1977"...it has long since been confirmed that hiv has been around in the usa since the 1950's. it just wasn't predominant until the 80's.
they cannot eliminate all risk; heterosexuals with only one sex partner would not be part of a high risk (note does not say "no" risk) group. they must eliminate the highest risk groups, then test as well as they can, knowing that it remains possible to have early infected individuals slip through nevertheless. though it does seem that anyone of any sexual preference should be excluded if they have multiple sex partners within a given period of time.
I just love how they say, "Prior to 1977"...it has long since been confirmed that HIV has been around in the USA since the 1950's. It just wasn't PREDOMINANT until the 80's.
How is this relevant? How many individuals who were sexually active/promiscuous in the 1950's are lining up to give blood? Again, they are looking at high risk individuals, not a needle in a haystack.
orificenic did save my life (orificenic trioxide is the cell-specific treatment for the chromosomal mutation for acute myelocytic leukemia- subtype M3)... :)
One persons' poison CAN be anothers' cure....but I get your point.
I just don't think that there are that many true absolutes- even heterosexual people do the occasional stupid thing that bites them in the a**-- sometimes pretty close to literally. :)
There are a lot of legit reasons to refuse blood- based on KNOWN problems- not judged ones based on ignorance. :) My whole thing with this is the assumption that someone's blood is bad just by looking at them (from the original article synopsis)... that's all :)
How is this relevant? How many individuals who were sexually active/promiscuous in the 1950's are lining up to give blood? Again, they are looking at high risk individuals, not a needle in a haystack.
I guess you forgot about the 70's when the worse thing people thought you could "catch" could be cured by a 10 day course of antibiotics.
As far as I'm aware, one of the directors of the Red Cross blood donation here in Oz, said he would never have a blood transfusion, because not every single bag of blood donated is tested for communicable diseases. This story was reported in a Jehovah's Witness Watchtower magazine that I had read.
I personally would refuse myself - it isn't just HIV you have to worry about. There are numerous blood borne diseases. I've even read books about theories that there are diseases communicated by blood we either don't know about, or haven't figured out how the disease is borne through blood/body fluid.
I would even have 2nd thoughts re getting a blood transfusion if I was told I was going to die. Some JWs I've known personally have been told they would die w/out a blood transfusion and they actually survived.
It's too scary for me personally to have blood transfused from another person. When asked before operations re blood transfusions, I always say no.
So when my pancytopenia required 25 units of PRBCs and platelets (total, not each), I should have been thinking about the 'what if's' and not done what was necessary to stay alive? There was no WAY my body could regenerate enough cells, let alone healthy ones on its own.
I have always hated the idea of getting someone elses' blood- but I hated the idea of sharing real estate with corpses more :)
So when my pancytopenia required 25 units of PRBCs and platelets (total, not each), I should have been thinking about the 'what if's' and not done what was necessary to stay alive? There was no WAY my body could regenerate enough cells, let alone healthy ones on its own.
I have always hated the idea of getting someone elses' blood- but I hated the idea of sharing real estate with corpses more :)
A very good point! I suppose we all have to make our own decisions. I've never really (but though I might be at one stage) dying, so I suppose I might change my mind then? Who knows.
I read a really good book not long ago about monkeys and how a scientist was trying to prove that we can catch many diseases off of them, let alone each other, and how we should not be eating monkeys etc as this has lead to many of the problems in the world with diseases transferring to humans. Others dispute his claims. Can't remember the name of the book, but it made me think long and hard re blood issues.
Donated blood is tested for antibodies, not actual viral presence because that is a very lengthy and expensive process. Sooooooo, someone could have contracted Hep C and have a VERY high viral count during the ramp up phase, but will not be antibody positive for several months. And in fact...some people, very rare indeed, but some people nonetheless never develop antibodies to Hep C. Therefore, that is why there are multiple checks; screening out high risk individuals and then testing blood for antibody presence because if you have engaged in a high risk behavior in recent past, you could be a festering viral factory and have no evidence of disease during the test phase.
I for one, am very much an advocate of gay rights and think that profiling gays as being high risk is certianly faulty. But when people's lives are at risk, you can never be too careful and so any high risk behavior is taken as a non-compatable with blood donation. Gay sex is undeniably higher risk than heterosexual sex due to the trauma endured by the orifice which is not meant to stretch as much as a lady parts. And unfotunately, if we decided to get more "PC" about it and deny blood donation by anyone who engages in sex in general, then well we'd all bleed out unless a whole lot of priests and nuns lined up for donation!
Horseshoe, BSN, RN
5,879 Posts
they cannot eliminate all risk; heterosexuals with only one sex partner would not be part of a high risk (note does not say "no" risk) group. they must eliminate the highest risk groups, then test as well as they can, knowing that it remains possible to have early infected individuals slip through nevertheless. though it does seem that anyone of any sexual preference should be excluded if they have multiple sex partners within a given period of time.