Should the Red Cross Lift Ban on Gay Donation?

[tednlou2]

I was in a debate tonight about whether the Red Cross should lift the ban on gays donating.  Actually, you don't even have to consider yourself gay to be banned.  If you answer you've had sex of any kind with a man since 1970-something, you cannot donate.  If a straight man was honest about messing around with his friend in highschool, he could not donate.

In 2000, I answered the question honestly.  They consider even mutual masturbation gay sex.  They don't ask straight people how promiscuous they are--at least they didn't in 2000.  They did ask whether you've ever sold sex for money.  I was turned away.  I guess I was naive, because I didn't know about this rule.  I was told I would be forever banned. 

In 2000, I called the director of our local RC to see what their logic is on this.  If they test all the blood, why does it matter?  I was told they ask that question to ensure the blood supply is safe.  I asked how asking that question would ensure the blood supply--after all many people would probably lie.  Plus, wouldn't their tests pick up the virus?  She said because HIV can go undetected for up to 6 months after infection, they ask the question to ensure the blood supply.  She kept saying "to ensure the blood supply."  I told her the blood isn't totally safe then.  Because they are often in need of blood and give it out as soon as it comes in almost, then HIV could slip through.  If this is how they "ensure the blood supply" then it isn't totally safe.  She answered it is totally safe, because they ask that question and ban gays.  It bothered me that a straight guy with 1,000 sex partners could donate, but I could not. 

Back to the debate tonight-- someone I was talking to said I had proven their ban necessary as I now have HIV.  I once thought I may have been infected from my previous partner in 1995, but he claims he didn't get it until 2003.  So, I got it in 2001 and would have been negative in 2000 when I tried to donate.  If I were poz, their testing should have picked it up. 

Just wondering what you guys think.  Is HIV so prevalent in gays that gays should be banned?  Shouldn't they have better testing and not rely on a questionnaire to ensure safety?  As I said, there was no question to straight people about how many sexual partners they had--at least not in 2000.  They just asked about prostitution and IV drug use.  I guess I'm wondering if the person I debated this with is correct--I proved exactly why they ban gays?  I still say most people are being misled.  I think most people think the blood supply is totally safe now.  I'm not sure what the actually stats are about safety, but it is obvious some bad blood has had to slip by if they are relying on a questionnaire.

It was an interesting debate and wanted to know what you guys think.   

[Matty the Damned]

I'm undecided. This is an unusal thing for Matty the Damned to be.

MtD

[komnaes]

Actually I am against it, and not because of any forced politically correctness. And I do believe, from many of their reports and public statements, that this ban is at least partially prejudice-motivated.

If the goal is to ensure safety, then as many of us have pointed out anyone is having regular sex with multiple partners and of unknown HIV status (i.e. not tested regularly) should be excluded other than just a group labeled as "gay" or men having sex with men. I have no problem for them to enact a ban on us to donate (though it should take a very twisted mentality for anyone who's tested HIV+ to still donate without disclosing); but to exclude a group based only on an assumption of risky behavior while allowing others (i.e. another high risk group would be, say, sex workers) is clearly a prejudice, enforcing unnecessarily a stereotype on gays.

I also think they should easily get rid of this risk by education i.e. by constantly communicating a policy of dissuading people involving in high risk sexual activities to give blood. As a public service the Red Cross has the option to be proactive in encouraging responsible behaviors (i.e. not to donate if one is sexual active and of unknown HIV status) or to be part of the problem in enforcing an unnecessary stereotype. So it's too bad that they choose to do the latter.

<edited for typos>

[Ann]

I think it's the height of idiocy to ask what a person's sexual orientation is on blood donor questionnaires.

What they should be asking is 1. have you ever tested for hiv and 2. have you had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse outside a committed relationship since your last negative hiv result. It's not about who you fuck, it's about how you fuck. And it's about accurately knowing your status.

[karry]

I think it's the height of idiocy to ask what a person's sexual orientation is on blood donor questionnaires.

What they should be asking is 1. have you ever tested for hiv and 2. have you had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse outside a committed relationship since your last negative hiv result. It's not about who you fuck, it's about how you fuck. And it's about accurately knowing your status.

I agree with Ann. They should be concerned about the donor's health...not his/her sexual orientation. I am personally against the ban.
K.

[GSOgymrat]

Knowing the percentage of gay men with HIV versus the general population would be relevent. Anyone happen to have that statistic?

[veritas]

Perhaps this link would fit into this discussion:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/52259.php

Is our blood reserves really safe?

v

[Miss Philicia]

If they have this question for gay men, then they probably should have it for straight black women, if we're going by statistics and all.  Of course, they'd never do that.

[Hellraiser]

What will happen to my blood after I donate?
Each blood donation is assigned a unique computer barcode number, which will identify it throughout its path from the donor to a hospital patient. Immediately after the blood donation, the blood is placed in transport containers designed to keep it at a safe temperature until it reaches a Red Cross component laboratory. Samples of the blood donation are simultaneously sent to one of nine Red Cross National Testing Laboratories to be tested for transmissible diseases. In the component lab, the blood is separated into its components: red blood cells, platelets and plasma. The products are then placed in quarantined, temperature-controlled refrigeration units until the test results are received (usually 12-16 hours later) and the blood can be released for distribution or destroyed. From local distribution centers, the blood is transported to hospitals based on patient need. Hospital personnel then transfuse the blood or blood products to a patient in need.

I was under the impression that they hold onto blood for a while and then tested it, which is why people who don't even know they have hiv haven't been giving it to others via transfusion since the early 90s.  Can't seem to find anything about the waiting period before testing online however.

[komnaes]

Knowing the percentage of gay men with HIV versus the general population would be relevent. Anyone happen to have that statistic?

Just to use Hong Kong as an example, you can find the detailed statistics here:

http://www.info.gov.hk/aids/english/surveillance/quarter.htm

While it'd be interesting to analyze the statistics on the risk factor of heterosexuals vs. homosexuals in a more refine manner, a group of numbers stand out rather (for a lack of a better word) interestingly. For all 5,458 HIV/AIDS cases recorded here:

3746 cases are of Chinese ethnicity
1712 cases are of non-Chinese ethnicity

For confirmed transmission through homosexual acts, the number is 1315.

I don't have the exact figure but it's safe to assume that non-Chinese only account for like 5-7% of the total population (of around 7 million). So even if I pick the lower number, there are roughly 350,000 non-Chinese living here. For homosexuals, I will use the commonly accepted 10%, and even if I restrict it to mainly gay men, there are also interestingly around 350,000 gay men plus non-gay men (i.e. bisexual and men that don't identify themselves as gay) that also involve in (and get infected correspondingly by) homosexual acts.

So, it's 1712 out of a population of 350,000 (non-Chinese) vs. 1315 out of the same number (M2M sex).

Now, I cannot imagine the local Red Cross will ever issue a ban against non-Chinese while statistically they post a bigger risk.

Also, one can also single out another group that is disproportionally affected, which is both men and women between the age of 30-39. The exact number is not listed in the table linked above, but by referring to another chart (in the same govt. website) I think this group account for like 1670-1700 cases. I just also quickly checked the age distribution and I think this age group account for like 15% of the total population. So the chance of a person is infected with HIV is roughly the same as gays. Again, I don't see Red Cross is preparing to ban this age group from donating.

My point is - it all depends on how one singles out a group statistically and define everyone belong to that group as a risk factor.

Hence, my point that Red Cross ban gays because of its own prejudice.

(Modified the typo and added the conclusion)

[U1195]

I think the link below that through more light to this question and discussion.
As you see in the link presently 1 in 450.000 to 660.000 blood donations and transfusions
in the usa pass through the ckecks and tests undetected als hiv+.
So from 5 million blood transfusions per year in the usa about 8 to 11 patients get infected
with hiv. People may argue that this number of infected patients is small,but I donot see it that
way.

http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/bloodsupply.htm

[Assurbanipal]

Just to use Hong Kong as an example, you can find the detailed statistics here:

http://www.info.gov.hk/aids/english/surveillance/quarter.htm

While it'd be interesting to analyze the statistics on the risk factor of heterosexuals vs. homosexuals in a more refine manner, a group of numbers stand out rather (for a lack of a better word) interestingly. For all 5,458 HIV/AIDS cases recorded here:

3746 cases are of Chinese ethnicity
1712 cases are of non-Chinese ethnicity

For confirmed transmission through homosexual acts, the number is 1315.

I don't have the exact figure but it's safe to assume that non-Chinese only account for like 5-7% of the total population (of around 7 million). So even if I pick the lower number, there are roughly 350,000 non-Chinese living here. For homosexuals, I will use the commonly accepted 10%, and even if I restrict it to mainly gay men, there are also interestingly around 350,000 gay men plus non-gay men (i.e. bisexual and men that don't identify themselves as gay) that also involve in (and get infected correspondingly by) homosexual acts.

So, it's 1712 out of a population of 350,000 (non-Chinese) vs. 1315 out of the same number (M2M sex).

Now, I cannot imagine the local Red Cross will ever issue a ban against non-Chinese while statistically they post a bigger risk.

Also, one can also single out another group that is disproportionally affected, which is both men and women between the age of 30-39. The exact number is not listed in the table linked above, but by referring to another chart (in the same govt. website) I think this group account for like 1670-1700 cases. I just also quickly checked the age distribution and I think this age group account for like 15% of the total population. So the chance of a person is infected with HIV is roughly the same as gays. Again, I don't see Red Cross is preparing to ban this age group from donating.

My point is - it all depends on how one singles out a group statistically and define everyone belong to that group as a risk factor.

Hence, my point that Red Cross ban gays because of its own prejudice.

(Modified the typo and added the conclusion)

 

Not sure the numbers hold together here.  The source you cite has 214 bisexual contacts and 833 "undetermined" route of transmission all of which appear to have been lumped into the heterosexual transmission category in your calculations.  Perhaps it would make more sense to assume at least a proportional amount of the undertermined are homosexual?

And to refer to the 10% number as "commonly accepted" overstates the case a bit (commonly disputed maybe?)  Most recent studies (i.e. after Kinsey)  come up with numbers in the 2% to 5% range.  

Recent census numbers on the HK gov site (which made my computer hang) did confirm about 95% ethnic Chinese population.

So... after fixing the calculations to reflect the above that would be roughly twice to five times the HIV prevalence rate among gay men as among non-ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong.  

*** edited to add, above assumes (as appears to be in your calculations) that HIV and AIDS are disjoint classes in the reported numbers

[Moffie65]

I wouldn't donate blood to the fucking RED cross if it was the only thing that would keep me alive.

Just try to get some help from them if your home is destroyed and they discover you're gay, SORRY, YOU'RE QUEER, YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR HELP, WE NEED TO HELP FAMILIES FIRST!!

Royal Assholes that org. is.

[komnaes]

While I agree that my circulation (on homosexual vs heterosexual) is a bit cruel, I would make the following points:

1. I didn't say that the 10% assumption covers only males that identify themselves as exclusively gay. It's generally referring to men who are "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55". The accusation that Kinsey has inflated this figure usually rest on other surveys that pick out a smaller population that identify themselves (usually your 2-5%) as exclusively gay and that he included also institutionalized homosexual behaviors (i.e. prison inmates), but it's not that relevant for homosexual sex act as a route of transmission. Actually, there are studies concluding that as much as 36.4% of men who had at least one homosexual encounter in their life time.

2. Having said, I probably should have included the "bisexual" group (though I have serious issue on how one can get HIV by a "bisexual" encounter) and the unidentified group. But to do so, I should probably have used the total population instead of just the male population (3 below).

3. Knowing I haven't done so (2 above), I already used only the 10% of male population as my base (i.e. 7 million x 50% x 10%), assuming that everyone of those 1315 homosexual encounter cases are men.

I would leave it to someone who knows statistics better, but the fact that 5% of non-Chinese population accounts for like 31% of all HIV/AIDS cases would indicates that they're a very high-risk group at least here in Hong Kong. And my feeling is that even with those adjustments the risk factor of a gay man with HIV vs. non-Chinese of both sexes will still be very similar.

(By the way, the base number of 5458 includes the number of accumulated reports of both HIV and AIDS cases at time of reporting. I am assuming that they use the CD4 below 200 as definition of AIDS, so there's no overlapping)

[Ann]

I think the link below that through more light to this question and discussion.
As you see in the link presently 1 in 450.000 to 660.000 blood donations and transfusions
in the usa pass through the ckecks and tests undetected als hiv+.
So from 5 million blood transfusions per year in the usa about 8 to 11 patients get infected
with hiv. People may argue that this number of infected patients is small,but I donot see it that
way.

http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/bloodsupply.htm

I take it you're arguing against the ban being lifted? But what makes you so sure those donations didn't come from positive straights who assume that because they're straight, they aren't at risk and therefore never test? Straights are often not diagnosed until they find themselves in hospital with PCP. Or aren't diagnosed until they apply and get refused for life insurance. We've seen that here in these forums often enough.

[emeraldize]

I think it's the height of idiocy to ask what a person's sexual orientation is on blood donor questionnaires.

What they should be asking is 1. have you ever tested for hiv and 2. have you had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse outside a committed relationship since your last negative hiv result. It's not about who you fuck, it's about how you fuck. And it's about accurately knowing your status.

  I agree with Ann's first and most recent post on the topic.

[fearless]

I agree with Ann's post on this issue. Succinct and cutting to the real issues.

However, I just checked the Australian Red Cross site and they no longer appear to have an outright ban on homosexuals donating blood. I'm not sure of the situation in the US or UK.

In Australia, if you have had male to male sex in the past 12 months you are given a 12 month 'deferral' from giving blood. There are a number of other sexual reasons used for 'deferral' as well.

There are a hole range of criteria they apply which you can see here: http://www.donateblood.com.au/page.aspx?IDDataTreeMenu=88#answer47

You can never give blood if:

    * You are HIV positive
    * You have hepatitis C
    * You have ever injected yourself or been injected with drugs not prescribed by a doctor or dentist
      (even if this was only once)
You are also banned from donating blood if you lived in the UK for a period of 6 months or longer between 1980 and 1996 - this is due to vCJD ( mad cow disease) being present in the UK in that time. Apparantely, there is no test for vCJD in your blood so you are simply banned.

[Matty the Damned]

Oz Red Cross has lifted teh ghey ban? Good stuff. Improvements in pooled testing presumably.

Group based bans made sense at one time and I always supported them from a public health perspective, but if screening capabilities have improved then I support lifting such bans.

As far as I'm aware a definitive diagnosis for any of the spongiform encephalopathies can only be made post-mortem.

MtD

[tednlou2]

So where do our friends in the UK get their blood?  Everyone who lives there during that time was exposed possibly.  Can mad-cow be passed to child?  I'm pretty sure the U.S. bans donations from people who spent time in the UK during that time frame as well.  I guess the UK doesn't ban its own people on the basis of mad-cow?

I think Canada is trying to lift the ban on gays donating if they haven't already.  I know many groups here in the U.S. want a lift of the gay ban.  I see on the news every week how the blood supply is critically low.  It just seems wrong to ban a whole group of people when most of them would probably be negative.

[joemutt]

For Thailand there is no ban on gay people donating blood,
but an under-developed country like Belgium doesn't allow gay blood donors.  /   

[fearless]

* You have ever injected yourself or been injected with drugs not prescribed by a doctor or dentist
      (even if this was only once)

This one will always knock me out, and I have AB- the rarest blood type. oh well.

[Matty the Damned]

* You have ever injected yourself or been injected with drugs not prescribed by a doctor or dentist
      (even if this was only once)

This one will always knock me out, and I have AB- the rarest blood type. oh well.

  . . . not to mention the small matter of the Queer Plague coursing through yer veins.

MtD

[tednlou2]

I was just reading the homepage of poz.com.  There was an article about this very issue.  How timely.  This is some good news.  However, there is another article about how the Las Vegas Taxi Cab commission is telling drivers to be careful of people they suspect to be gay.  I'm a little confused about this article.  It talks about the Taxi Cab Commission making arrests and what protection they should use.  Is this normal?  I know here in Louisville, a cab driver would call the police if there was some incident.  The taxi cab people don't make their own arrests here.  So, I'm confused by this article. 

http://www.poz.com/articles/gmhc_gay_blood_hiv_report_401_18084.shtml

http://www.poz.com/articles/vegas_ta_hiv_gay_1_18086.shtml

[Ann]

However, there is another article about how the Las Vegas Taxi Cab commission is telling drivers to be careful of people they suspect to be gay.  I'm a little confused about this article.  It talks about the Taxi Cab Commission making arrests and what protection they should use.  Is this normal?  I know here in Louisville, a cab driver would call the police if there was some incident.  The taxi cab people don't make their own arrests here.  So, I'm confused by this article. 

Ted, I imagine the The Las Vegas Taxi Authority (TA) is like the NYC Transit Authority. You know, subway cops. The LVTA aren't taxi drivers, they're the authority who deal with infractions that happen in taxis just like NYCTA are the authority who deal with infractions in the subway system.

LV probably has a separate TA police system because they probably have a high volume of taxi traffic and instead of calling the regular police force for someone who is drunk in the back of a taxi or is refusing to pay their fare, they call the TA.

[dixieman]

Ann... Gave an Excellent clairification on this...

[fearless]

  . . . not to mention the small matter of the Queer Plague coursing through yer veins.

MtD

lmfao. i totally forgot about that. bwah ha ha

[tednlou2]

Ann,

Thanks for the clarification.  That clears things up.  

It is still disturbing that they are listing people they suspect to be gay as high-risk people and should use protective gear when dealing with gays.  I'm not sure how they would know who is gay.  If a man has feminine traits, they would deal with him differently?  Do they ask whether you're gay?  It was good news to read about a new push to remove gays from a total ban on blood donations...then I read this.  Progress is slow and on-going I suppose.

[Dennis]

Ann,

Thanks for the clarification.  That clears things up.  

It is still disturbing that they are listing people they suspect to be gay as high-risk people and should use protective gear when dealing with gays.  I'm not sure how they would know who is gay.  If a man has feminine traits, they would deal with him differently?  Do they ask whether you're gay?  It was good news to read about a new push to remove gays from a total ban on blood donations...then I read this.  Progress is slow and on-going I suppose.

Too funny. Should we team up with the prostitutes and intravenous drug user to rally behind having this changed?
Honestly, I think I'd prefer a taxi driver wear protective gear before touching me. Not for their protection, but mine.

What I really found amusing is the memo states "Any clothing or evidence known to be contaminated with suspected AIDS, Hep B, other communicable disease will be place in specific area and labeled. The label will indicate, "Known AIDS,"..." It then goes on to say "all bloody clothing shall be considered contaminated."

If all bloody clothing is to be considered contaminated, as it should be, then what in the hell is the purpose of labeling it?

[Ann]

Technically, the LVTA have changed their policies - but only in 2007. The problem (aside from the fact that it took them until 2007 to change) is that they're still handing out the old handbooks. Presumably because they still have them in print and don't want to chuck them out.

While the TA approved a new policy manual in 2007 that removes the stigmatizing language, the agency continues to distribute the outdated version.

They should treat anyone using a taxi with universal precautions - if the situation warrants it. For example, if someone is bleeding, they should have latex gloves on-hand if they need to handle that person, just like any other police force does. But to put on a hazmat suit every time they pick up a prozzy or whatever is just OTT.

I can understand why bloody clothing would be labeled as such. The blood might be hidden in a fold or might not readily show up on dark colours. Last time I landed in the nick, there was fresh blood on my navy-blue coat and it didn't show up unless you looked closely in decent light.  The next morning when I collected my belongings, my coat was in a yellow hazardous waste plastic bag. Did it bother me? Did it fuck. I was glad to see they were using universal precautions, as they should.

Yes, that's right, I said the last  time I landed in the nick. I never said I was an angel! I've only ever done over-nighters though, never did time.

[Nestor]

In Australia, if you have had male to male sex in the past 12 months you are given a 12 month 'deferral' from giving blood. There are a number of other sexual reasons used for 'deferral' as well.

Oz Red Cross has lifted teh ghey ban? Good stuff. Improvements in pooled testing presumably.

If I'm reading the first quote correctly, they ban any man who has had sex with another man in the past twelve months.  That would exclude a pretty large percentage of gay men.  It's still better than banning any man who has ever slept with another man, ever, though. 

[blackwingbear]

If they have this question for gay men, then they probably should have it for straight black women, if we're going by statistics and all.  Of course, they'd never do that.

For once, we are in total agreement!

[next2u]

what is a nick?

[Matty the Damned]

what is a nick?

Commonwealth slang (as a noun) for prison. As a verb it means "to be arrested".

As a noun it's always "the nick" not "a nick".

MtD

[Dennis]

I can understand why bloody clothing would be labeled as such. The blood might be hidden in a fold or might not readily show up on dark colours. Last time I landed in the nick, there was fresh blood on my navy-blue coat and it didn't show up unless you looked closely in decent light.  The next morning when I collected my belongings, my coat was in a yellow hazardous waste plastic bag. Did it bother me? Did it fuck. I was glad to see they were using universal precautions, as they should.

This makes sense...sorta. I just don't see any reason to give it a specific label (i.e. Known Aids, Hep B, etc). If there is blood on the clothing, just throw it in a biohazard waste bag.

Would you have felt differently if when you collected your clothes that they weren't just in a hazardous waste bag, but that bag also had a tag on it that said "known Aids?"

[Ann]

Would you have felt differently if when you collected your clothes that they weren't just in a hazardous waste bag, but that bag also had a tag on it that said "known Aids?"

I would have read them the riot act over the misuse of the term aids. It should have said hiv, no matter if I had an aids diagnosis or not.

And I also would have read them the riot act for not treating any bloody clothing as suspect. That's what they do over here and they just stick such clothing in a hazardous waste bag as supplied to hospitals and other public institutions. Simple.

[David_CA]

Yes, that's right, I said the last  time I landed in the nick. I never said I was an angel! I've only ever done over-nighters though, never did time.

The one time a quickie is better than something long-term, I suppose!   

[Miss Philicia]

source

Some New York lawmakers are calling for an end to a federal ban on blood donations by gay men.

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner said Saturday that overturning the prohibition could save lives at times when the city's blood supplies run low.

The Food and Drug Administration prohibits men who have sex with men from donating blood, regardless of their HIV status. The ban was put in place in 1983. Weiner says it was implemented amid ignorance of how the virus is transmitted.

The Democrat says the policy doesn't make blood any safer.

On Thursday a group of 18 U.S. senators called for changes in the law, including New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.