I am glad to see they're making an attempt at going in the right direction. However, here's a few of my thoughts on the subject.
1. - I think there's compromises the FDA could be making to lift a ban completely from a couple. For example, say you've been in a monogamous relationship with someone. I think if you both can provide a test for HIV with negative results every quarter in a year for two years, you should be able to donate blood.
I know there's an incubation period for HIV but, honestly, two years I think is a decent time for it to show up properly if someone has actually contracted it from someone else.
2. - I think the FDA really needs to look at risky behavior more than they are. I say this because there were several people from my high school who slept with a lot of people with absolutely no testing and hardly any protection who went to donate blood that lied on the questions. They didn't take the questions seriously and honestly, I am so thankful they were denied. Straight or otherwise, people with this behavior should be flagged from donating blood as well unless they can provide proper tests results via the same method as above. These people are the ones who worry me more than anything. I know HIV is still heavily associated with gay men but the amount of unprotected sex a lot of people in general are still having is honestly terrifying.
Not to mention when people lie on the questions for screening. Blood should be tested regardless of the answers given ( which I certainly hope they are ) but things slip through the cracks.
3. - I know why people are jumping to this conclusion, and I am not dismissing bias completely, but I wish people would quit assuming bias toward gay men is the sole reasoning behind this ban not being lifted completly. This seems like such a terrible assumption.
People who have had blood transfusions are not allowed to give blood for quite a few years.
People who have gotten tattoos are not allowed to donate blood for a certain timeframe of a couple of years as well.
This is not bias. This is a safety precaution. Again, gay men still heavily hold the higher percentage of population that have contracted HIV. I'm not saying other people of other sexualities don't contract it but I understand the screening process of early elimination. Again, ways around this as stated above but, it's better to eliminate the risk if someone has been sexually active all year and are gay since they can still test negative after a year. They aren't sitting there like, "I don't like this person's sexuality so screw them. /denies" like a lot of people are making them out to be doing.
Saying they should be 100% dismissed without prior testing would be like saying, "I accept that someone got a tattoo with a tattoo gun this week. Oh, but the place they got tattooed at, the tattoo gun, ink containers, etc. weren't sanitized and used on other people prior. But it's okay because if they contracted HIV or something it'll show up immediately on tests. I'm unreasonable and don't believe in hidden strands of diseases that cannot be tested and found right away." Like wut? No, that is not how things work. You have to be safer than sorry with this since this blood goes into other people's bodies. You can completely ruin someone's life by passing a disease to them without them even being aware of it until after the fact.
I'm sorry for the long post but this is an extremely important topic for me. I have been on the receiving end of blood transfusions. I am thankful every day for the person who donated the blood since it saved my life but, with that being said, I was so afraid as well knowing people lie on the screening questionnaire. Not everything can be found on blood tests. I have a form of arthritis that doesn't show up on blood work. I know that's not the same as a disease but my point is, imagine if it was a disease that could spread to someone else via bodily fluids. How would you feel if you received blood from me in that scenario? Even though I knew I was a health risk but decided to lie on ONE QUESTION that allowed me to pass the screening? And that blood tests could not track that down?
Wouldn't be so great, would it? This is what the FDA is trying to avoid since, again, HIV can lie dormant in someone ( so to speak ) during the incubation period. It can be difficult to test for this at times and it'd be better to be safe than sorry later on. Again, i think if people can give a timeline of tests longer than a year and a half with negative results despite being sexually active, they should be cleared to donate blood. But if they can't, I do not believe they should be allowed to since it's just as risky as examples of other people banned from donating blood for a while that I listed above. Granted, I still believe this logic should be applied to anyone since straight couples and whatnot can carry just as many health risks.
100
50
