5 ms·

This inspired me to register, but once again I was thwarted by the US' arcane rule banning gay men from donating. The rule applies despite the fact that I've be

This inspired me to register, but once again I was thwarted by the US' arcane rule banning gay men from donating. The rule applies despite the fact that I've been monogamous for ages and am tested for everything under the sun twice a year. A college frat boy who has had unprotected sex with a different girl every week for the past semester can give blood/marrow, but monogamous, healthy gay men can't. I don't get it.

tomjen3 15y ago
It is the same shit for blood donations in Denmark. They got pretty unpopular when they asked for more donors because they feared a shortage but then turned away the gay men. And no, it is not for health issues because they don't turn away gay women. Of course you could register if you want to and then if called upon show up eagerly with your partner for moral support. Then flat out ask if they are going to kill their own patients just to pretend that it is still the fifties. Of course don't do it if they can't get a donor in time.
- JVirissimo 15y ago
  The assumption that gay women have the same risk profile as gay men seems very weak. Almost any group of women will, on average, engage in less risky behavior than an analogous group of men.
- heimidal 15y ago
  tomjen3: Gay women are the lowest risk demographic when it comes to HIV contraction, so I don't take issue with their inclusion. The problem, as I see it, is that most countries place an unreasonable bias against _all_ gay men rather than _some_ gay men. The appropriate way to handle donor screenings is to ask about sexual behavior in general, such as whether or not you are monogamous, how many partners in the past year/two years/five years, how often condoms are used, etc. Instead, we blatantly exclude all gay men but do not exclude other high risk demographics. For example, black women are eligible despite being an extremely high risk group compared to white women (1 in 58 vs 1 in 588, respectively). Unfortunately, the FDA is so afraid of alienating existing donors by asking them for a sexual history profile that they would rather stick to the status quo and continue excluding gays altogether.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Unfortunately, the FDA is so afraid of alienating existing donors by asking them for a sexual history profile that they would rather stick to the status quo and continue excluding gays altogether. Which could actually make sense. If (if!) it's correct that asking about sexual history would alienate existing donors, and if (if!) it would alienate enough to compromise the blood supply, it might be "safer" to keep the current rules in place instead of trying to be somehow more objectively "fair".
- jacoblyles 15y ago
  In the United States, gay men[1] account for 49% of HIV positive people according to the CDC. Gay women do not account for at least 2% of the HIV positive population and so are excluded from the most recent CDC fact sheet[2]. So, gay men and women may be treated very differently by health officials with some valid reason. [1]The CDC actually tracks the objective category "men who have sex with men", and not the fuzzy labels "gay" and "straight". [2]http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final...
  - StavrosK 15y ago
    Half the people with HIV might be gay, but half the gay people don't have HIV. The statistic you quoted is not the one we need to ascertain whether the reason for turning them down is valid or not.
    - jacoblyles 15y ago
      That's true. I can't say whether or not the health bureaus' policies are justified as I am not an expert. But I can guess that it is not unreasonable that they would treat gay males and gay females differently. There is probably some testing regime that could be implemented that would allow tissue and serum donation programs to be blind to sexual behavior.
      - StavrosK 15y ago
        Oh, definitely. I'm just saying that that statistic is irrelevant to that particular point.
    - Dove 15y ago
      Actually, it's the right one. What you want to reduce is the incidence of infected people in the donor pool. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. If you can drop your incidence of HIV by 50% while reducing the pool size by only 2%, you've improved the infection incidence in the pool substantially!
- radu_floricica 15y ago
  I've seen the math in another discussion in another forum, and it's actually sensible to turn away gay people. From their point of view the goal is to get as many blood donations as possible, while minimizing the risk of disease. They couldn't give a f*ck about anything else. Couldn't find all the numbers I was looking for, but it turns out 61% of infections in US are through male-to-male sexual contact. This probably translates into over 60% of HIV carriers being male and gay. Now, if I was a guy in a position to decide things, and I could reduce by more then half the risk of HIV in transfused blood by reducing the donation pool by 7-10%... I'd do it in a heartbeat. If you have some time you could try to calculate how many more people would get HIV if gay people would donate blood. You could subtract the people who wouldn't die because of the increase blood supply. But the result would still be positive. The point of the whole blood donation thing is not to be politically correct, but to solve a problem. Making it politically correct, in this particular case, would mean solving the problem worse, possibly significantly worse then if we just let them do their jobs.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Yes, but if one has recent test results showing that he's not infected, blindly turning him down anyway makes no sense.
    - Dove 15y ago
      Actually, it does. Recent test results aren't useful with HIV; it can remain undetectable for months. It's a question of perspective. You might be certain enough of your and your partner's fidelity over the last year to bet a stranger's life on it. But they aren't confident enough in a stranger's assertion of marital fidelity to bet their patient's life on it.
  - srl 15y ago
    Upvoted, even though you're wrong. You seem to be saying, in essence: allowing gays to donate doubles the number of instances of transfusing HIV while only increasing the number of lives saved by 7-10% (or 20%, or 2% - it doesn't matter). But that's the wrong way to look at it. Even if 10% of all transfusions from gays resulted in an additional HIV infection (thanks to testing etc., I'd guess it'd be well below 1%), that still means that, for any given transfusion candidate, you have a 90% possibility of saving their life without transfusing HIV.
- losvedir 15y ago
  > And no, it is not for health issues because they don't turn away gay women. Wait, doesn't that exactly refute your point? Presumably, gay men and gay women have different health profiles, whereas they have similar "moral" profiles to an up-tight conservative. I think the statement makes more sense like: > And no, it is not for moral issues because they don't turn away gay women.
marvin 15y ago
At least in Europe, you're not allowed to donate blood/bone marrow if you've recently had unprotected sex. I think moonogamous gay men are allowed to donate, but not single gay men.
- zacharyvoase 15y ago
  Nope, it's not related to monogamy at all; if you're a man who's had sex with a man (protected or otherwise) in the last year, you're ineligible. Note that this is also regardless of stated sexual identity; the category is actually 'men who have sex with men', not 'gay men'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    In the US, the Red Cross requirements [0] prevent you from donating if you've had male-to-male sexual contact in the last 34 years (since 1977). There are several other "since 1977" criteria, including being paid for sex or living in certain parts of Africa. [0] http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requ...
Dove 15y ago
It's the same reason they tested me for STDs when I got pregnant, even though I married a virgin as a virgin and we have been faithful forever. It's not about what you believe about yourself and your partner. It's about the statistics. Someone else's life is on the line. They need to be sure. Though I must admit, I'm surprised the policy is in place with marrow donations. With blood donations, sure, transfusions are a routine thing and your blood is highly replaceable. With marrow donations, though, someone may need your marrow or they'll die. I'd think a match, even if it carried a slight statistical chance of HIV, would be something they'd want to know about.
- timr 15y ago
  If someone needs a bone marrow transplant, their immune system is severely compromised (effectively eliminated). If they're given marrow from an infected donor, they'd have no way to fight off the resulting infection. It would be a death sentence. On the other hand, many people who need a marrow transplant have some flexibility as to when they can get the donation. This is why the guidelines are so strict: the risk/reward ratio is balanced in favor of caution.
- aplusbi 15y ago
  It's not just about statistics. For blood donations, if I had unprotected sex with a different HIV infected partner every day for a year, then stopped doing this for a year and one day, I would be eligible to donate blood. If, however, I had sex with a man once in the last 30 years I am not eligible. Why is it more sensible to turn away gay people then it is to turn away people who have regularly exposed themselves to HIV?
  - hyperbovine 15y ago
    It's not. Her comment makes no sense, at least to me. Anyways, I am just curious, couldn't you just lie about your sexual orientation at the time of screening? I think it's awful that you should have to, but if your desire is to save lives, why let our backwards medical establishment get in the way? At the very least you could notify them if/when a match was found, and let the recipient decide...
rokhayakebe 15y ago
The problem with monogamy is that you can guarantee you are, but you cannot guarantee your partner is.

tomjen3 15y ago

It is the same shit for blood donations in Denmark. They got pretty unpopular when they asked for more donors because they feared a shortage but then turned away the gay men. And no, it is not for health issues because they don't turn away gay women. Of course you could register if you want to and then if called upon show up eagerly with your partner for moral support. Then flat out ask if they are going to kill their own patients just to pretend that it is still the fifties. Of course don't do it if they can't get a donor in time.

JVirissimo 15y ago
The assumption that gay women have the same risk profile as gay men seems very weak. Almost any group of women will, on average, engage in less risky behavior than an analogous group of men.
heimidal 15y ago
tomjen3: Gay women are the lowest risk demographic when it comes to HIV contraction, so I don't take issue with their inclusion. The problem, as I see it, is that most countries place an unreasonable bias against _all_ gay men rather than _some_ gay men. The appropriate way to handle donor screenings is to ask about sexual behavior in general, such as whether or not you are monogamous, how many partners in the past year/two years/five years, how often condoms are used, etc. Instead, we blatantly exclude all gay men but do not exclude other high risk demographics. For example, black women are eligible despite being an extremely high risk group compared to white women (1 in 58 vs 1 in 588, respectively). Unfortunately, the FDA is so afraid of alienating existing donors by asking them for a sexual history profile that they would rather stick to the status quo and continue excluding gays altogether.
- kelnos 15y ago
  Unfortunately, the FDA is so afraid of alienating existing donors by asking them for a sexual history profile that they would rather stick to the status quo and continue excluding gays altogether. Which could actually make sense. If (if!) it's correct that asking about sexual history would alienate existing donors, and if (if!) it would alienate enough to compromise the blood supply, it might be "safer" to keep the current rules in place instead of trying to be somehow more objectively "fair".
jacoblyles 15y ago
In the United States, gay men[1] account for 49% of HIV positive people according to the CDC. Gay women do not account for at least 2% of the HIV positive population and so are excluded from the most recent CDC fact sheet[2]. So, gay men and women may be treated very differently by health officials with some valid reason. [1]The CDC actually tracks the objective category "men who have sex with men", and not the fuzzy labels "gay" and "straight". [2]http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final...
- StavrosK 15y ago
  Half the people with HIV might be gay, but half the gay people don't have HIV. The statistic you quoted is not the one we need to ascertain whether the reason for turning them down is valid or not.
  - jacoblyles 15y ago
    That's true. I can't say whether or not the health bureaus' policies are justified as I am not an expert. But I can guess that it is not unreasonable that they would treat gay males and gay females differently. There is probably some testing regime that could be implemented that would allow tissue and serum donation programs to be blind to sexual behavior.
    - StavrosK 15y ago
      Oh, definitely. I'm just saying that that statistic is irrelevant to that particular point.
  - Dove 15y ago
    Actually, it's the right one. What you want to reduce is the incidence of infected people in the donor pool. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. If you can drop your incidence of HIV by 50% while reducing the pool size by only 2%, you've improved the infection incidence in the pool substantially!
radu_floricica 15y ago
I've seen the math in another discussion in another forum, and it's actually sensible to turn away gay people. From their point of view the goal is to get as many blood donations as possible, while minimizing the risk of disease. They couldn't give a f*ck about anything else. Couldn't find all the numbers I was looking for, but it turns out 61% of infections in US are through male-to-male sexual contact. This probably translates into over 60% of HIV carriers being male and gay. Now, if I was a guy in a position to decide things, and I could reduce by more then half the risk of HIV in transfused blood by reducing the donation pool by 7-10%... I'd do it in a heartbeat. If you have some time you could try to calculate how many more people would get HIV if gay people would donate blood. You could subtract the people who wouldn't die because of the increase blood supply. But the result would still be positive. The point of the whole blood donation thing is not to be politically correct, but to solve a problem. Making it politically correct, in this particular case, would mean solving the problem worse, possibly significantly worse then if we just let them do their jobs.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Yes, but if one has recent test results showing that he's not infected, blindly turning him down anyway makes no sense.
  - Dove 15y ago
    Actually, it does. Recent test results aren't useful with HIV; it can remain undetectable for months. It's a question of perspective. You might be certain enough of your and your partner's fidelity over the last year to bet a stranger's life on it. But they aren't confident enough in a stranger's assertion of marital fidelity to bet their patient's life on it.
- srl 15y ago
  Upvoted, even though you're wrong. You seem to be saying, in essence: allowing gays to donate doubles the number of instances of transfusing HIV while only increasing the number of lives saved by 7-10% (or 20%, or 2% - it doesn't matter). But that's the wrong way to look at it. Even if 10% of all transfusions from gays resulted in an additional HIV infection (thanks to testing etc., I'd guess it'd be well below 1%), that still means that, for any given transfusion candidate, you have a 90% possibility of saving their life without transfusing HIV.
losvedir 15y ago
> And no, it is not for health issues because they don't turn away gay women. Wait, doesn't that exactly refute your point? Presumably, gay men and gay women have different health profiles, whereas they have similar "moral" profiles to an up-tight conservative. I think the statement makes more sense like: > And no, it is not for moral issues because they don't turn away gay women.

marvin 15y ago

At least in Europe, you're not allowed to donate blood/bone marrow if you've recently had unprotected sex. I think moonogamous gay men are allowed to donate, but not single gay men.

zacharyvoase 15y ago
Nope, it's not related to monogamy at all; if you're a man who's had sex with a man (protected or otherwise) in the last year, you're ineligible. Note that this is also regardless of stated sexual identity; the category is actually 'men who have sex with men', not 'gay men'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
- lotharbot 15y ago
  In the US, the Red Cross requirements [0] prevent you from donating if you've had male-to-male sexual contact in the last 34 years (since 1977). There are several other "since 1977" criteria, including being paid for sex or living in certain parts of Africa. [0] http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requ...

Dove 15y ago

It's the same reason they tested me for STDs when I got pregnant, even though I married a virgin as a virgin and we have been faithful forever. It's not about what you believe about yourself and your partner. It's about the statistics. Someone else's life is on the line. They need to be sure. Though I must admit, I'm surprised the policy is in place with marrow donations. With blood donations, sure, transfusions are a routine thing and your blood is highly replaceable. With marrow donations, though, someone may need your marrow or they'll die. I'd think a match, even if it carried a slight statistical chance of HIV, would be something they'd want to know about.

timr 15y ago
If someone needs a bone marrow transplant, their immune system is severely compromised (effectively eliminated). If they're given marrow from an infected donor, they'd have no way to fight off the resulting infection. It would be a death sentence. On the other hand, many people who need a marrow transplant have some flexibility as to when they can get the donation. This is why the guidelines are so strict: the risk/reward ratio is balanced in favor of caution.
aplusbi 15y ago
It's not just about statistics. For blood donations, if I had unprotected sex with a different HIV infected partner every day for a year, then stopped doing this for a year and one day, I would be eligible to donate blood. If, however, I had sex with a man once in the last 30 years I am not eligible. Why is it more sensible to turn away gay people then it is to turn away people who have regularly exposed themselves to HIV?
- hyperbovine 15y ago
  It's not. Her comment makes no sense, at least to me. Anyways, I am just curious, couldn't you just lie about your sexual orientation at the time of screening? I think it's awful that you should have to, but if your desire is to save lives, why let our backwards medical establishment get in the way? At the very least you could notify them if/when a match was found, and let the recipient decide...

rokhayakebe 15y ago

The problem with monogamy is that you can guarantee you are, but you cannot guarantee your partner is.