FDA Reiterates Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood, Despite Red Cross Objections

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/fda-blood/

FDA Reiterates Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood, Despite Red Cross Objections

Gay men are still banned for life from giving blood, “leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.” The Food and Drug Administration’s ban prevents an estimated 62,300 gay and bisexual men per year from donating blood, despite the Red Cross calling the policy “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

On its website, the FDA attempts to justify the 24-year-old rule by arguing that current HIV testing cannot always pick up right away when someone is HIV positive:

The ‘window period’ exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious.

Therefore FDA would change this policy only if supported by scientific data showing that a change in policy would not present a significant and preventable risk to blood recipients.

Yet last year, the Red Cross, the international blood association ABBA, and America’s Blood Centers all called on the FDA to reverse the ban. They explained that such “window period” risks have been negated by modern blood tests, which “can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection.” To ensure such risks were minimized further, their proposal included a “one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact.”

In many parts of the country, blood supplies are critically short. More information about donating blood is available HERE.

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. Because I was stationed Germany in the 80's

and I visited England, I am banned from giving blood(Mad cow disease)I was working on my third gallon doner award too.x(

[marmar]

2. Well every other federal agency is headed back to the dark ages....

So why not have the FDA return to the Reagan '80s? :shrug:

[pinto]

3. I'm gay, have HIV, and understand the FDA's choice for caution.

While the sensitivity (specificity? - I always get the two lab terms confused) of antibody testing has dramatically improved since the original rule was enacted, the pre-screening of donors still makes sense, overall. Men who have sex with men are not the only excluded donors, as noted above. And it remains the window period before infection is detectable, however shortened, that calls for caution. I can understand that.

[Matsubara]

4. Seems to me a better guideline would be anyone who has ever had...

...unprotected anal sex.

Not all gay men have engaged in this behavior, and some straight people have done some risky crap too.

Anyway, in the end it's all down to the honor system. If gay men really wanted to donate so badly, they could lie and do so.

I personally have had only one risky encounter in my life, 17 years ago, and I have tested negative consistently since them, and have been in a 100% monogamous relationship with an HIV- woman for 13 years, but I still do not donate blood because I don't want it on my conscience if I have some undetected strain, or even a less dangerous blood-borne disease.

Anyway, I donated at least 10 times BEFORE my risky behavior, which is more than many people do in a lifetime, so I don't feel too bad about it.

[FreeState]

6. Risky crap?

...unprotected anal sex.

Not all gay men have engaged in this behavior, and some straight people have done some risky crap too.

Wow. Im speechless.

Gay men having unprotected anal sex is now risky crap. And "straight people have done some ricky crap too" - but you do not specify what that is.

As a gay man who has unprotected anal sex, a lot of it too, I take great offense that what I do to express my love with my partner is "risky crap."

[Matsubara]

10. Sorry you feel that way.

"Wow. Im speechless.

Gay men having unprotected anal sex is now risky crap."

Gay men, straight men, straight women, doesn't matter who's doing it, there is a significantly higher risk of a whole number of STDs, not just HIV. In fact, I was referring SPECIFICALLY to straight people when I said that, so save your righteous indignation for someone who gives a CRAP.

You have every right to do as you please, but it is risky, and it's not that only thing that would fall into that category.

How about this, in the future, in deference to your feelings, I will refer to unprotected anal sex as "risky stuff". Mkay?

Because you sure as damn hell are not going to get me to budge on the "risky".

[FreeState]

15. What?

Please tell me how I will get a STD or HIV from unprotected anal sex from my partner. We are both negative. How is that risky?

Im sorry but you need to learn the facts before you start condemning everyone with one wide brush. Not all unprotected anal sex is risky.

Last time I checked with my doctor and every HIV specialist I know, I have zero chance of getting HIV from my partner. The risk lies in multiple partners not in the sex act.

Edit to add:

"Studies have shown that about 50 percent of married men and 25 percent of married women, 18 to 35, have tried anal intercourse at least once, says James C. Achtzehn Ph.D., a retired sexuality professor from Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C." http://www.sexetc.org/story/sex/1963

While it does not state if it was unprotected - looks like there are a lot of straight people who should not be allowed to give blood either.

[Matsubara]

17. I had just written a long reply and my stupid browser crashed AGAIN...

Suffice to say, I didn't meant to imply judgment, and I shouldn't have boiled it down to JUST anal sex, as there are other risky behaviors out there.

"I have zero chance of getting HIV from my partner. The risk lies in multiple partners not in the sex act."

Yes. If you've got that kind of trust with a guy you're SURE has not been with others, then you're at low risk. I respect the bond of trust you have with your partner. But not everyone can be so sure.

"While it does not state if it was unprotected - looks like there are a lot of straight people who should not be allowed to give blood either."

I think if gay men are to be banned on the basis of this behavior (I checked, gay virgins are NOT banned from donating, it's the history of sex with a man that gets you banned, not your orientation), then it seems that straight people engaging in it shouldbe banned too.

I know that there have been several HIV cases in the straight porn world, for the very reason that there is so much risky activity with multiple partners. Seems that straight people who get around a lot or "swing" without protection should not be donating either. Same with all the many other sexual and non-sexual risk factors.

[pinto]

8. No, the guidelines are based on epidemiological data. Viral population clusters and

transmission vectors.

~66% of reported AIDS cases in the US (CDC, 2005 data) are among men who have sex with men, injection drug users or both (those with overlapping risks). When expanded to include sexual partners of the previous (male or female) it is greater than 80%.

In the interests of a cautious, data based, public health approach, I can understand the exclusion of gay men, injectors and their sex partners from blood donation.

Broad based exclusions? Yep. Justifiable? In the best practices sense, yeah. Understandable.

[Matsubara]

11. That's really absurd though.

A gay man who is a virgin is obviously a much lower risk than a highly sexually active straight man with many partners.


Clearly specific sexual history should be of some relevance.

[pinto]

12. Agree. But it's a broad, general attempt to minimize risk to the blood supply. Eh.

I suspect blood banks don't have the time to discuss level of risk among donors. They rely on self reported risk factors and the HIV/hepatitis antibody testing all donations undergo before distribution.

[Bridget Burke]

16. The questionnaire doesn't ask about the sexual yearnings of virgins.

It very specifically asks men if they've had sex with other men. Among the many other questions.

[originalpckelly]

5. I didn't know that only gay men can get HIV.

You learn something every single day.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. There are several other excluded groups

-Those who have gotten tattoos or body peiecings in the last 12 months

-Those who have taken illegal drugs through a needle

-Those who were born in or lived in some sub-Saharan countries.

-Those who have been paid for sex

-Those who have paid for sex

There is a big list of questions they ask you when you donate blood. This is just a few of them.

[dsc]

18. That is highly misleading

I just recently gave blood (I lie). You are asked if you had sex with a hooker within the last year, but you are asked if you ever had sex with another man. This is nothing but out and out bigotry. I could have sex with every prostitute in the history of the world and wait one year but having sex with one man, 30 years ago, and I can't give blood ever again.

[Horse with no Name]

9. I just think they should bar anyone that has sex

Not only that...anyone that COULD have sex.

[wicket]

13. kick

:kick:

[underpants]

14. I had no idea it was the FDA who prohibited this

I found out last year that I couldn't give blood because I had lived in Europe for more than 3 months since 1980. I was in the Army in Germany and there is no testing available for mad cow disease.

This is news to me. The Red Cross is against this measure, hmmmm.