Senators: Lift ban on gays donating blood

Let's try to keep this civil please.

Given all the precautions that many of us take to avoid the transmission of STDs among the active members, I couldn't understand this move by legislators:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...8WKcgD9E818582

Senators: Lift ban on gays donating blood
By JIM ABRAMS (AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The time has come to change a policy that imposes a lifetime ban on donating blood for any man who has had gay sex since 1977, 18 senators said Thursday.
"Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who joined 16 other Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in writing Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
The lawmakers stressed that the science has changed dramatically since the ban was established in 1983 at the advent of the HIV-AIDS crisis. Today donated blood must undergo two different, highly accurate tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually zero, they said.
The senators said that while hospitals and emergency rooms are in urgent need of blood products, "healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it."
Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign,the nation's largest gay rights group, said they are hopeful that the policy, last reviewed in 2006, will change under President Barack Obama, "who is interested in looking at all the policies that have a discriminatory effect." The goal, he said, is "to have policies in place that are based on the science" rather than "any discriminatory idea about our community."
The senators' letter noted that in March 2006, the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and the American Association of Blood Banks reported to an FDA-sponsored workshop that the ban "is medically and scientifically unwarranted."
The FDA, in a statement, said that "while FDA appreciates concerns about perceived discrimination, our decision to maintain the deferral policy is based on current science and data and does not give weight to a donor's sexual orientation."

*More at the link.


This is not about homophobia. This is about a health issue.


I thought after reading the news today that perhaps my information concerning HIV/AIDS was simply outdated. So I decided to check out the Centers for Disease Control's website to see what the changes were pertaining HIV/AIDS.


From the CDC website:




http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm

HIV also can be transmitted through blood infected with HIV. However, since 1985, all donated blood in the United States has been tested for HIV. Therefore, the risk for HIV infection through the transfusion of blood or blood products is extremely low.*



*please note that it doesn't say the risk for transmission is zero.





..................


Risk Factors for HIV Transmission You may be at increased risk for infection if you have

• injected drugs or steroids, during which equipment (such as needles, syringes, cotton, water) and blood were shared with others
• had unprotected vaginal, anal, or oral sex (that is, sex without using condoms) with men who have sex with men, multiple partners, or anonymous partners
• exchanged sex for drugs or money
• been given a diagnosis of, or been treated for, hepatitis, tuberculosis (TB), or a sexually transmitted disease (STD) such as syphilis
• received a blood transfusion or clotting factor during 1978–1985
• had unprotected sex with someone who has any of the risk factors listed above

So even the government's website still lists gay men as a very high risk group. For that matter, our little group here is there also, i.e. exchanged sex for money.


What I don't understand is the motivation behind this? Are the legislators so damn bent on making everyone "feel accepted" even if it endangers the entire population?



I'd like to read some replies on this and see how others view this move by some members of the US Senate.


Thank you in advance for participating.

Welcome to the Nanny State. There is a clear agenda at work and it is about power to control you and your way of life that is far greater than was done with the Patriot Act. Keep in mind there are far more pressing and important issues for Congress to be dealing with, so why are they wasting their time with this? It is not as if there is a large percentage of the population that will be affected by this one way or the other.

As far as homosexuals donating blood, I am against it since the science currently in use cannot rule out 100% that their blood may contaminant the supply. I have been against it since I first became a medic in the military in the mid-80’s. The problem is the CDC's website only lists men and makes no mention of women who are also homosexual. Clearly there are issues with how the government does its findings as well as how the rules are put in place since if guys are targeted then women should be as well if they are homosexual.

I’ll read more when I get more time but thanks for the post Matador.

Great just freakin' great . . . just more people horning in on the cookies and juice.

Just an observation: I have taken medications for a continuing medical condition for about 50 years. I have many times wanted to donate blood; I have a fairly rare type (AB+, not the rarest, I know). But I have always been turned down because of the maintenance medications I take...mostly, I believe, on the the theory that the person receiving the blood might be allergic to the medications, or they might have a reaction to the medications introduced so suddenly into their systems.

Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they aren't healthy enough to donate blood.

To make a leap that because one is gay they also have HIV/AIDS is nonsense.

However, the highest risk group for HIV/AIDS has always been unsterile intravenous drug users...then unprotected sex.

I don't see a problem in blood donation as along as it can be tested to be safe. You can't tell by looking whether or not a donor--any donor--has contaminated blood. So, all donors should have their blood checked before it is accepted to be used.

Just my € 0.0147316.

But we don't exchange sex for money, or vice versa! ...Right?

As far as I know, all blood donations are tested for most of the major blood-borne diseases before being given to a recipient. I could be wrong; it's not an area I have much experience with or expertise in.

I think the motivation behind this legislation is, as you mentioned, primarily one of acceptance. However, if all blood is PROPERLY screened, the history of the donor (whether sexual history or IV drug use or penchant for visiting developing countries) doesn't matter from a safety standpoint. What does matter is that blood donated from those in "high risk" groups could create more paperwork or spend more testing money on what will ultimately be useless donations.

On the other hand, from what I can tell, blood banks are seemingly desperate for donors all the time. Why turn away a large segment of the population -- many of whom have perfectly good, clean blood -- because of their sexual preferences (or vacation plans)? Is the cost/benefit ratio really that skewed?

Its kinda Funny, i am Banned from Donating Blood because the US Army had my Family stationed in Europe in Mad Cow years.

I do not think that allowing gays to donate would raise the cost of testing or paperwork, All that testing is done already before the blood is cleared for use. If there not clean that will show up and they will banned in the system not costing us more money in the long run with repeated donations. As a benefit the person would then know they are infected, and hopefully will not spread it.

LD you are welcome and I am glad you have a background in this field. All the other little people like me can only go by the information we are given.

CT2005, I can see how a particular medication that may assist you to stay healthy could have serious adverse consequences for someone who does not have the same condition as you. I am sure there are large numbers of adults who fall in the same category as you.

Carrie you bring up some very good points. I do have concerns with the period of detection though. According to the American Red Cross:

http://www.redcrossblood.org/donatin...etical-listing

Wait for 12 months after receiving a blood transfusion from another person in the United States.

This statement is in no way linked to any specific issue on their website. I can't help but wonder if the screening is so precise and accurate, why wait for a year before a person can be eligible to donate? Others with a healthcare background would be better suited to provide answers to these concerns. All I can say with certainty is that I would not consider becoming a donor until I have been out of the hobby for at least 12 months. Just my opinion. And that may be the reason I find this move by some senators disconcerting.

ydnar 22, you are partially correct and so is Carrie. The same tests would be conducted on the donated blood regardless of the individual's background, so the cost per donor would remain the same. Carrie is correct in that there is likely to be many more donors rejected from this "high risk" group, because there would be many found to have infectious diseases. That is what would increase the cost of screening and create extra paperwork for useless donations. Maybe your long term scenario would be correct but it is hard to say.

From reading several sites, estimates are that 21% of people living with HIV aren't aware that they are infected.

But we don't exchange sex for money, or vice versa! ...Right?

Carrie, I would visit you if only to see the pretty face that goes with those sexy legs of yours

I do not believe there would a high rate of Useless Donations. Your Higher risk population which is the IV drug users are more likly to end up at a plasma Center for Cash then give there blood for free to a Blood bank.

I believe that people are Generally Good. People that know they have Something would not waste there time, There is no Financial Motive. Think about it a blood doner is doing something for the good of others, i would be inclined to believe that they would be the same people that look after themselves after high risk activity's.


I just notices from the Red cross page i am disallowed for a few other reason. Malaria is bitch, but india was really neat. I do not think i could do it anyways. The sight of blood makes me Faint. Its better now that i have kids, they seem to be the most accidenat prone kids i know, but i can handle little blood now. Needles on the other hand, ~faints

There are some in the medical profession who believe the blood bank business is corrupted and the checks are not done as routinely and thoroughly as needed. While HIV is supposedly way down, HEP C is up and projected to rise over the next 20 years.

I don't give a damn if some is gay or not. The donors need to be screened. "At risk" donors should be excluded. I get still excluded for admitting I did a popular drug in the 80's while I see people in line who I suspect are lying on their questionnaires about some of their lifestyle choices.

I wonder how many people get something from transfusions still from tainted blood.

If you have planned surgery, opt for autologous blood. This is blood you donate ahead of time for your own surgery.

What about the 6 month gestation period of blood testing. It could take 6 months of abstinence no matter sexual orientation before the likelihood the patient doesnt have HIV is cleared.

Do they wait 6 months are so before using the donated blood and retest it, or after testing is it an immediate transition to transmission in your body.

The problem is the CDC's website only lists men and makes no mention of women who are also homosexual. Clearly there are issues with how the government does its findings as well as how the rules are put in place since if guys are targeted then women should be as well if they are homosexual. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Male homosexual sex (anal) is statistically a more at-risk activity than female homosexual sex. The CDC refers specifically to MSM (men who have sex with men) when determining their HIV/AIDS statistics. Here's an exerpt from the CDC's website:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

The term men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to all men who have sex with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual). In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous impact on MSM. Consider these facts:

• AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic.
• MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.
• In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive.

While all donated blood is tested, the screening process is in place to further lower the possibility of accepting tainted blood. I'm not current with the most modern testing technology, but as of 2005, there was a 6 month window where an HIV carrier could test negative, possibly slightly longer if the person tested was infected by another carrier who was currently participating in antiviral therapy.

This is a very provocative topic on so many levels, because there are so many homosexual men who want to contribute to society by donating their blood. Also, the demand for blood often outpaces supply. However, issues of public health must be determined dispassionately, based on statistics and the most current information available, and should not be used as a tool for political correctness, or as a tool to curry favor with constituents.

Army Medic and 13 year civilian health-care worker