FDA lifts ban on gay men donating blood, with restrictions

[Pessimist]

GayAndGodlessVegan

Pessimist

If that is your mindset DO NOT ******** DONATE. You are putting other, vulnerable, people at risk with your selfish need to show off that you can donate blood. Hell, if you *know* you are not eligible, tell the worker there so they can slap a "Do Not Use" label on it to fulfill your bizarre need to have blood drawn, but are too risky to actually use.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ on a cracker, it's like no one actually understands what goes into blood banking. Especially the part where your blood is going to be put into someone else.

arrow So, even if people do not know they're at risk, they still cannot donate because the banks cannot be bothered to test blood regardless of orientation? Or is it just to 'prevent' because well us homos are just a bunch of promiscuous d**k-pirates who just go at it raw with the first dude who gives us a compliment? And obviously all of us are infected...so, throw the proverbial baby with the bath water.
Assume all of us are HIV-ridden f*gs (pardon my language)

No, I don't think or say that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

My frustration with Super 9 Volt is that he goes in lying without a ******** concern for another human being that may need his blood.

[VeganIncubus]

Pessimist

No, I don't think or say that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

My frustration with Super 9 Volt is that he goes in lying without a ******** concern for another human being that may need his blood.

arrow I didn't say that you said that. It just feels like that's the general idea behind the ban.

arrow I wouldn't lie, either. Even though I know I am HIV free.

[Pessimist]

GayAndGodlessVegan

Pessimist

No, I don't think or say that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

My frustration with Super 9 Volt is that he goes in lying without a ******** concern for another human being that may need his blood.

arrow I didn't say that you said that. It just feels like that's the general idea behind the ban.

arrow I wouldn't lie, either. Even though I know I am HIV free.

Then your post was vague. But I am happy you wouldn't lie. The questionnaire is an important part of the screening process. You can't just wave a magic wand over the sample and be able to declare it free of disease. We are better at testing then we were a decade or two ago, but there are people who are actively living with diseases due to blood transfusions. My hemophiliac stepfather is one of them. He contracted Hepatitis C through a transfusion.

[VeganIncubus]

Pessimist

Then your post was vague. But I am happy you wouldn't lie. The questionnaire is an important part of the screening process. You can't just wave a magic wand over the sample and be able to declare it free of disease. We are better at testing then we were a decade or two ago, but there are people who are actively living with diseases due to blood transfusions. My hemophiliac stepfather is one of them. He contracted Hepatitis C through a transfusion.

arrow Gotcha. I know my boyfriend lies about having sex with men on his form whenever he donates blood, so I will indeed ask him to not do that anymore. I think the ban wouldn't be necessary if perhaps the FDA put into place better testing...otherwise, perfectly good blood is going to waste.
What is the actual purpose of the ban?

[Maternal Muffin]

GayAndGodlessVegan

Maternal Muffin

If all blood is screened anyway, who gives a s**t who sleeps with who?

Let me get this straight. My friend and his boyfriend cannot donate blood when they've been together for years. But my son's grandmother, who literally slept with every Tom, d**k & Harry known to man when she was alive, could donate?

arrow The thing here isn't how many people that person has been with, it's whether they've been safe in their sex lives. Heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, it really should be about risky behaviours.
The FDA is clearly biased in this regard, and if everyone wears a condom when they have intercourse, why should it matter how many sexual partners they even have?

I 100% agree.

[Maternal Muffin]

Pessimist

Maternal Muffin

Quote:

Today, all blood is screened for HIV and testing for the virus is advanced.

If all blood is screened anyway, who gives a s**t who sleeps with who?

Let me get this straight. My friend and his boyfriend cannot donate blood when they've been together for years. But my son's grandmother, who literally slept with every Tom, d**k & Harry known to man when she was alive, could donate?

Because the screening isn't foolproof. Even the direct antigen tests require week before the patient shows any signs. And while I don't quite remember the questionnaire off the top of my head, your mother may end up excluded anyways.

There can be changes to FDA regulations and there should be, but to everyone going "derp the tests will fix things", that is not the case. There's a reason donation facilities want to know your medical history, because your blood is going to be given to someone else.

(Actually, it's my son's father's mom. LOL)

That's all understandable, but damn. This is discrimination... I don't feel that it matters whether or not who you choose to lay down with. It's just a matter if they're safe about it.
And besides, who's to say someone might lie? :

[Pawlas Cathena]

Pessimist

Super 9-Volt

If I was having sex with other men, I would have lied my a** off on that form. But they won't accept my blood anyways because apparently my iron is low. cat_rolleyes They need to get rid of the ban altogether.

If that is your mindset DO NOT ******** DONATE. You are putting other, vulnerable, people at risk with your selfish need to show off that you can donate blood. Hell, if you *know* you are not eligible, tell the worker there so they can slap a "Do Not Use" label on it to fulfill your bizarre need to have blood drawn, but are too risky to actually use.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ on a cracker, it's like no one actually understands what goes into blood banking. Especially the part where your blood is going to be put into someone else.

If my iron wasn't low, I would donate regardless of my mindset. Like the person a few posts above said, men who have sex with other men can't donate but a woman that has slept with several men is still eligible and that's not right.

[Pessimist]

Super 9-Volt

Pessimist

Super 9-Volt

If I was having sex with other men, I would have lied my a** off on that form. But they won't accept my blood anyways because apparently my iron is low. cat_rolleyes They need to get rid of the ban altogether.

If that is your mindset DO NOT ******** DONATE. You are putting other, vulnerable, people at risk with your selfish need to show off that you can donate blood. Hell, if you *know* you are not eligible, tell the worker there so they can slap a "Do Not Use" label on it to fulfill your bizarre need to have blood drawn, but are too risky to actually use.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ on a cracker, it's like no one actually understands what goes into blood banking. Especially the part where your blood is going to be put into someone else.

If my iron wasn't low, I would donate regardless of my mindset. Like the person a few posts above said, men who have sex with other men can't donate but a woman that has slept with several men is still eligible and that's not right.

It's the fact that you will willingly lie that I find utterly repugnant. It says you do not care. It says you are donating blood to fulfill some sort of selfish need, not because you genuinely want to help others.

If you feel the need to be bled that badly, go somewhere where they pay for plasma for pharmaceutical work or something. Not at a facility where they collect blood for human use.

[Pawlas Cathena]

Pessimist

Super 9-Volt

Pessimist

Super 9-Volt

If I was having sex with other men, I would have lied my a** off on that form. But they won't accept my blood anyways because apparently my iron is low. cat_rolleyes They need to get rid of the ban altogether.

If that is your mindset DO NOT ******** DONATE. You are putting other, vulnerable, people at risk with your selfish need to show off that you can donate blood. Hell, if you *know* you are not eligible, tell the worker there so they can slap a "Do Not Use" label on it to fulfill your bizarre need to have blood drawn, but are too risky to actually use.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ on a cracker, it's like no one actually understands what goes into blood banking. Especially the part where your blood is going to be put into someone else.

If my iron wasn't low, I would donate regardless of my mindset. Like the person a few posts above said, men who have sex with other men can't donate but a woman that has slept with several men is still eligible and that's not right.

It's the fact that you will willingly lie that I find utterly repugnant. It says you do not care. It says you are donating blood to fulfill some sort of selfish need, not because you genuinely want to help others.

If you feel the need to be bled that badly, go somewhere where they pay for plasma for pharmaceutical work or something. Not at a facility where they collect blood for human use.

You've got a lot of nerve accusing me and those that would lie about whose pants we were in to donate blood to help other people. I wouldn't let that stop me from trying to help others. The ban still being in place is the most retarded thing and it's still discriminatory.

[Pessimist]

GayAndGodlessVegan

Pessimist

Then your post was vague. But I am happy you wouldn't lie. The questionnaire is an important part of the screening process. You can't just wave a magic wand over the sample and be able to declare it free of disease. We are better at testing then we were a decade or two ago, but there are people who are actively living with diseases due to blood transfusions. My hemophiliac stepfather is one of them. He contracted Hepatitis C through a transfusion.

arrow Gotcha. I know my boyfriend lies about having sex with men on his form whenever he donates blood, so I will indeed ask him to not do that anymore. I think the ban wouldn't be necessary if perhaps the FDA put into place better testing...otherwise, perfectly good blood is going to waste.
What is the actual purpose of the ban?

Honestly it's because men who have sex with men are still the leading populations when it comes to new cases of HIV. And between that and the window period before HIV becomes a detectable in the blood means that it would be preferable to simply exclude the group instead of take the risk. Personally I think if one could say they were in a monogamous relationship with another man and both were clean then they should be able to donate like anyone else.

As for what testing methods, when it comes to HIV, blood banks screen for the antibody as opposed to a direct antigen test. Simply put, they're looking for whether you've made antibodies in response to HIV instead of looking directly for HIV itself. It's a cost-effective method of screening a lot of blood. If something pings, you panic , you run a different test and IMMEDIATELY label the bag, and contact the donor. But with all of the tests for HIV there's always going to be a window period where a donor could initially test negative, then positive at a later date. Same goes for Hep C, syphilis and several other fun diseases.

An addendum to the testing, while obviously there is testing for HIV, there are better methods to test for it, which is why potential donors are urged to not donate just for the free HIV test, not to mention reducing the risk of a mislabeled bag of blood getting added to the system.

[VeganIncubus]

Pessimist

Honestly it's because men who have sex with men are still the leading populations when it comes to new cases of HIV. And between that and the window period before HIV becomes a detectable in the blood means that it would be preferable to simply exclude the group instead of take the risk. Personally I think if one could say they were in a monogamous relationship with another man and both were clean then they should be able to donate like anyone else.

As for what testing methods, when it comes to HIV, blood banks screen for the antibody as opposed to a direct antigen test. Simply put, they're looking for whether you've made antibodies in response to HIV instead of looking directly for HIV itself. It's a cost-effective method of screening a lot of blood. If something pings, you panic , you run a different test and IMMEDIATELY label the bag, and contact the donor. But with all of the tests for HIV there's always going to be a window period where a donor could initially test negative, then positive at a later date. Same goes for Hep C, syphilis and several other fun diseases.

An addendum to the testing, while obviously there is testing for HIV, there are better methods to test for it, which is why potential donors are urged to not donate just for the free HIV test, not to mention reducing the risk of a mislabeled bag of blood getting added to the system.

arrow That's really serious. We've gotten tested and turns out we're negative for HIV and I am in an exclusively monogamous relationship. If indeed it is a fact that men who have sex with men are the leading populations when it comes to new cases of HIV perhaps they ought to show more data and present it in a manner that doesn't come off as discriminatory. I personally now understand the year-long ban a bit better.
I guess it is because they process so much blood and stuff, and people lying and whatnot may slip through the cracks and the results may actually not reflect their actual status, thus endangering other lives? s**t, that's messed up.

[Pessimist]

GayAndGodlessVegan

arrow That's really serious. We've gotten tested and turns out we're negative for HIV and I am in an exclusively monogamous relationship. If indeed it is a fact that men who have sex with men are the leading populations when it comes to new cases of HIV perhaps they ought to show more data and present it in a manner that doesn't come off as discriminatory. I personally now understand the year-long ban a bit better.
I guess it is because they process so much blood and stuff, and people lying and whatnot may slip through the cracks and the results may actually not reflect their actual status, thus endangering other lives? s**t, that's messed up.

Yeah, risk-management in healthcare can seem cold and prejudiced, but I'd like to think that's why the FDA makes their policies, instead of by politics. Though it's probably a mix of both. ~_~

I agree that we should be looking into which populations within the gay community are more risky then others. Because you're clearly not in the population that seems high-risk, and you and your partner should be able to donate blood.

[VeganIncubus]

Pessimist

Yeah, risk-management in healthcare can seem cold and prejudiced, but I'd like to think that's why the FDA makes their policies, instead of by politics. Though it's probably a mix of both. ~_~

I agree that we should be looking into which populations within the gay community are more risky then others. Because you're clearly not in the population that seems high-risk, and you and your partner should be able to donate blood.

arrow Probably.

arrow However, it pisses me off that populations considered more 'risky' could be permabanned. Risky choices could indeed warrant more caution, but still.

[Pessimist]

GayAndGodlessVegan

Pessimist

Yeah, risk-management in healthcare can seem cold and prejudiced, but I'd like to think that's why the FDA makes their policies, instead of by politics. Though it's probably a mix of both. ~_~

I agree that we should be looking into which populations within the gay community are more risky then others. Because you're clearly not in the population that seems high-risk, and you and your partner should be able to donate blood.

arrow Probably.

arrow However, it pisses me off that populations considered more 'risky' could be permabanned. Risky choices could indeed warrant more caution, but still.

Well, you can get permanently deferred for a bunch of thing outside your control. For another example, people who take insulin produced from cows in Europe from 1980 onwards are permanently deferred. Or if you even *lived* in England from 1980 to 1996. Why? Because there are concerns about mad cow disease. We can't even screen for that.

I feel like the word 'risk' is being a bit misunderstood. I feel like, based on the replies in this topic, the idea of permanent deferral is being taken as judgement on someone's lifestyle, when it's not really. And the FDA is taking steps by reexamining the groups it considers potential risks to the blood supply

I genuinely hope that you and your partner will be able to donate someday, Vegan. We do always need blood, especially if either of you is a tasty O negative.

[VeganIncubus]

Pessimist

Well, you can get permanently deferred for a bunch of thing outside your control. For another example, people who take insulin produced from cows in Europe from 1980 onwards are permanently deferred. Or if you even *lived* in England from 1980 to 1996. Why? Because there are concerns about mad cow disease. We can't even screen for that.

I feel like the word 'risk' is being a bit misunderstood. I feel like, based on the replies in this topic, the idea of permanent deferral is being taken as judgement on someone's lifestyle, when it's not really. And the FDA is taking steps by reexamining the groups it considers potential risks to the blood supply

I genuinely hope that you and your partner will be able to donate someday, Vegan. We do always need blood, especially if either of you is a tasty O negative.

arrow Thanks. I understand things better now. I feel like you should write a blurb about this on a blog or have me interview you and publish that sometime because people do indeed seem to be taking this as a judgment on their sex lives and orientation.

arrow I'm A- I think. I'm p sure my boyfriend is O.