ILLEGAL FOR GAY MEN TO GIVE BLOOD IN THE US?

[newbie76]

Is this for real?!?

http://gaylife.about.com/cs/abuseviolence/a/blooddonors.htm

I had never heard of this before!

And we still hope that the US government will lift the ban on HIV+ individuals entering the US?

Frankly, after reading this, I have lost all my hopes... 

[fearless]

It's about protecting the blood supply. I have no problem with the ban. We have a similar one is Aus.

[Dachshund]

 

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=12578.msg157069#msg157069

[newbie76]

It's about protecting the blood supply. I have no problem with the ban. We have a similar one is Aus.

It promotes homophobia and it spreads the idea that gay men=HIV+

An HIV test and an interview on a person sexual behaviour before donating should be more than enough in my opinion.

[Iggy]

I first found out in college when I went to give blood during a blood drive.  I had never heard of the ban until that time and was just glancing at the informational sheet they were giving everyone waiting to have their blood drawn and saw the prohibition against male donors who had sex with other men.

I was dumbfounded at the time and stayed on line to ask the people performing the blood withdrawals directly about it.   I was told that my blood would be undesirable for donation purposes.

What I also remember was seeing two people I knew who were gay but in the closet give blood that day.   I assume plenty lie today as well.

Not surprising that you brought up the travel ban in relation to this as both seems to present a choice to people to either lie and disregard the system or be honest and be discriminated against. 

[newbie76]

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=12578.msg157069#msg157069

Thank you Dachshund!

Didn't realise this had been already discussed: happy to see that the majority of the people on here agree with me on this.

[Miss Philicia]

Unless you're wearing a sequined t-shirt I guess you could always just lie about being gay.

[newbie76]

Unless you're wearing a sequined t-shirt I guess you could always just lie about being gay.

Well, I know, but that's not the point... I REALLY wouldn't be the best candidate to give blood now, would I?!? lol

I just think that paradoxically, it makes more sense banning people from entering the US for fear of spreading the disease even further than to ban all gay man from donating blood because they are a category "at risk", so after I have found this out, I don't really see the point for fighting to get the ban lifted on entering the US.

[Matty the Damned]

Like Little Steve, Matty the Damned supports this ban strongly. It's an issue of public health.

MtD

[Miss Philicia]

I'm really not sure I agree on that logic, but I basically find the blood ban weird because they test all the stuff any way.

That said, should we also lift the ban on IV drug users too?  I'm sure that would go over well.

[newbie76]

Like Little Steve, Matty the Damned supports this ban strongly. It's an issue of public health.

MtD

So, according to your convictions, all gay men are potential HIV+ individuals?

[Dachshund]

it makes more sense banning people from entering the US for fear of spreading the disease even further than to ban all gay man from donating blood because they are a category "at risk", so after I have found this out, I don't really see the point for fighting to get the ban lifted on entering the US.

Once and for all could someone please provide the statistics that prove allowing HIV infected people to enter their countries has resulted in an increased rate of infections. Comparing travel bans with donating blood is what doesn't make any sense.

[Dachshund]

So, according to your convictions, all gay men are potential HIV+ individuals?

According to the statistics we are.

[newbie76]

I'm really not sure I agree on that logic, but I basically find the blood ban weird because they test all the stuff any way.

That said, should we also lift the ban on IV drug users too?  I'm sure that would go over well.

IV drug users do something illegal, it is also illegal because drugs alterate your decision making capabilities and therefore IV drug users may be more inclined in sharing needles which is the behavioural risk.

[fearless]

The ban in Aus is on men who have sex with men, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or bi.

Last year some 88% of new cases of HIV resulted from men who reported having sex with men, so yes, I support the ban in my country.

[newbie76]

it makes more sense banning people from entering the US for fear of spreading the disease even further than to ban all gay man from donating blood because they are a category "at risk", so after I have found this out, I don't really see the point for fighting to get the ban lifted on entering the US.

Once and for all could someone please provide the statistics that prove allowing HIV infected people to enter their countries has resulted in an increased rate of infections. Comparing travel bans with donating blood is what doesn't make any sense.

I see you chose to leave out a key word from the quote "paradoxically". Obviously I don't agree with the ban on entering the US at all, I am just saying that if there are government which still have such backwards views as to think that gay men shouldn't be allowed to donate blood because they are all potential HIV+ individuals, I don't see them lifting the ban on entering the US as that (IN THEIR BACKWARD VIEW) is probably a much higher risk for the general population they are so desperately trying to protect from us.

[newbie76]

The ban in Aus is on men who have sex with men, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or bi.

Last year some 88% of new cases of HIV resulted from men who reported having sex with men, so yes, I support the ban in my country.

A man that has sex with another man is hardly straight now is he?!? Anyway, that's beyond the point, it is still a very discriminatory law.


Yes 88% of new HIV cases were from gay men, that doesn't mean that 88% of the gay population in Aus is HIV+ though, does it?!?

[newbie76]

deleted

[thunter34]

The ban in Aus is on men who have sex with men, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or bi.

Last year some 88% of new cases of HIV resulted from men who reported having sex with men, so yes, I support the ban in my country.

For the record, I've heard this same argument used to ban gay men from serving in our armed forces...as this service might often place the enlisted in emergency situations where they need to get blood from within their own ranks. 

ps:  that's been sometime back.  not sure if or how often that argument gets brought forth these days.

[fearless]

men who have sex with other men does not equate to identifying as being gay, it's men who have sex with men, no more no less.

Yes, it is discriminatory. but discrimination is not always a bad thing. we also do not allow IV drug users (who you seem happy to discriminate against because they do something illegal), people who have lived in the UK for more than 6 months, and a whole raft of other groups.

Many, many people cannot donate blood in this country in order to protect the blood supply.

The fact you were not aware of this ban suggests that you do not donate blood, so why do you care so much. As you do not donate blood or are not in need of regular supplies of donated blood it is unlikely that you fully appreciate the reasons behind the ban on various groups in society.

[Matty the Damned]

In Australia the law is very clear. Amongst others, the following people are excluded from donating blood and organs:

Men who have had sex with other men since 1977;
Women have had sex with homosexually active men since 1977;
People who inject illicit drugs;
People who have had sex with people who inject illicit drugs;

. . . and so on. I think the parameters are clear.

The human pooled blood supply is an essential life saving service for the entire community. It should not be used as some undergraduate soap box for limp wristed identity politics. The bans are sensible and necessary.

N00b,

If you really want to fight the fight for gay and lesbian people, why don't you consider the plight of young queers in American schools, or the wretched position of our people in places like China, Iran, Afghanistan, Jamaica, Zimbabwe and so on?

MtD

/edited for a teeensy typo/

[404error]

pwned

[newbie76]

Most of the UK HIV+ individuals in the UK (where I live) are concentrated in London. Should we ban all Londoners from donating blood too?

What about black people?

[newbie76]

men who have sex with other men does not equate to identifying as being gay, it's men who have sex with men, no more no less.

Yes, it is discriminatory. but discrimination is not always a bad thing. we also do not allow IV drug users (who you seem happy to discriminate against because they do something illegal), people who have lived in the UK for more than 6 months, and a whole raft of other groups.

Many, many people cannot donate blood in this country in order to protect the blood supply.

The fact you were not aware of this ban suggests that you do not donate blood, so why do you care so much. As you do not donate blood or are not in need of regular supplies of donated blood it is unlikely that you fully appreciate the reasons behind the ban on various groups in society.

I do not donate blood because I am HIV +

[newbie76]

In Australia the law is very clear. Amongst others, the following people are excluded from donating blood and organs:

Men who have had sex with other men since 1977;
Women have had sex with homosexually active men since 1977;
People who inject illicit drugs;
People who have had sex with people who inject illicit drugs;

. . . and so on. I think the parameters are clear.

The human pooled blood supply is an essential life saving service for the entire community. It should not be used as some undergraduate soap box for limp wristed identity politics. The bans are sensible and necessary.

N00b,

If you really want to fight the fight for gay and lesbian people, why don't you consider the plight of young queers in American schools, or the wretched position of our people in places like China, Iran, Afghanistan, Jamaica, Zimbabwe and so on?

MtD

/edited for a teeensy typo/

I am not fighting for anybody, fighting against HIV is already quite a handful!

I am just surprised on how other gay men like myself can agree with such a blatantly discriminatory law, that's all!

Having said that... good night!

[404error]

What about black people?

That's far too broad.  A better question would be "What about African immigrants?"

[newbie76]

Mine was an obvious provocation...

[fearless]

I am not fighting for anybody, fighting against HIV is already quite a handful!

I am just surprised on how other gay men like myself can agree with such a blatantly discriminatory law, that's all!

Having said that... good night!

Because discrimination is not always a bad thing. In this case, the end result is a relatively safe blood supply.

[newbernswiss]

Gay men or Men who have sex with Men I don't personally think are being singled out for not being able to donate blood.  Everyone is screened with the hope that ALL will be truthful to lower the possible risk of transfusing blood which could be contaminated with certain bacteria, viruses, and parasites.  In the United States there are specific questions to ask before blood can be given. To protect the public I would hope no one would lie or deceive just the make a point. I inform my sexual partners of my status and let them make a decision if they want to engage in sex with me, what's the difference in informing the blood bank of my sexual contact and letting them make a decision if they want my blood?

Those who may be deferred include:

* Anyone who has ever used intravenous drugs (illegal IV drugs)

* Men who have had sexual contact with other men since 1977

* Anyone who has ever received clotting factor concentrates

* Anyone with a positive test for HIV (AIDS virus)

* Men and women who have engaged in sex for money or drugs since 1977

* Anyone who has had hepatitis since his or her eleventh birthday

* Anyone who has had babesiosis or Chagas disease

* Anyone who has taken Tegison for psoriasis

* Anyone who has risk factors for Crueutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) or who has an immediate family member with CJD

* Anyone who has risk factors for variant CJD

* Anyone who spent three months or more in the United Kingdom from 1980 through 1996

* Anyone who has spent five years in Europe from 1980 to the present

[bocker3]

Hey Newbie76 --

This is one of the topics on this forum where you are simply going to have to allow others to disagree with you.  You are not going to successfully change minds (I've tried).  Try not to get too worked up over it, people tend to get themselves in trouble by overreacting on some issues.  Take your beliefs and leave the others with theirs -- it really isn't necessary to get everyone to agree with everything -- not too mention, it ain't ever going to happen. 
For the record -- I agree with you.

Mike

Modifiied to add: -- it's not actually "Illegal" -- no one goes to jail over it -- it's a policy.

P.S.

* Men who have had sexual contact with other men since 1977

Just wanted to point out that you missed a very telling piece of this particular question:  it goes on to say "EVEN ONCE".

[newbernswiss]

And your point Bocker,
All it takes is one time...if I was HIV negative I would want as strict of a  screening of the blood supply, I would want to know that the risk of possible disease from a transfusion is very low. Why would I want to take a chance of getting any of several possible diseases just because I feel its wrong to be ask if I have had sex (EVEN ONE TIME) with a man. 

[RapidRod]

As the others have pointed out. I agree with ban on blood donations that are listed for the possibility of transmitting diseases through blood transfusions and organ donations. It's not being discriminating in the least.

[Dachshund]

To protect the public I would hope no one would lie or deceive just the make a point. I inform my sexual partners of my status and let them make a decision if they want to engage in sex with me, what's the difference in informing the blood bank of my sexual contact and letting them make a decision if they want my blood?

You're kidding right? People lie everyday about everything for a variety of reasons.

[vokz]

Newbie,

As a gay man, I fully support any ban on blood donations from all men who have had sex with men (even safer sex using a condom) because these bans are an extremely sensible (and statistically sound) way of plugging the yawning gap in current testing technology.

I would also like to remind you that the US rules are not so very different from the rules that are enforced here in the UK (https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp) where there is a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with men.   

The UK (nor indeed the vast majority of other countries with similar rules) don’t ban HIV-positive visitors, so why should we assume that there would be any connection between the US ban on visitors and their policy on blood donations?

With reference to your comment about rejecting blood from “black people”; UK rules are also very clear that you can’t give blood for 12 months after having sex with ANYONE, of any race, who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS / HIV is common (this includes ANY country in Africa).

UK rules also place restrictions on donations from twenty-four other groups of people (including anyone who has visited the USA and Canada between 1st May 2007 and 30th November 2007).

In my opinion, these rules aren’t about hateful discrimination. They are about using statistically sound logic to protect the blood (and organ) supply whilst maintaining public confidence in the safety of that supply.

Edited to add:

Bocker is right when he says that this is one of those issues where you probably can’t change minds.

Peter Tatchell campaigns against the ban here in the UK (he refers to it as “the bloody prejudice” and “the gay blood ban shame” whilst claiming that it "stereotypes all queers as modern-day Typhoid Marys") but still finds it impossible to rally the support of the gay community (including many of his former partners in crime at Outrage!).

It would seem that the Terrence Higgins Trust – which fully supports the ban – has the ear and respect of more gay men than he does when it comes to this sort of issue .. but since PT also seems to tell us pozzers that (because we aren’t all out and proud about our HIV status) we only have ourselves to blame for HIV stigma, this probably isn’t so very surprising

[keyite]

Echoing what many others have said: how the prevalence rates play out in different communities is abundantly clear and quite markedly too. I therefore fully support the ban.

[bocker3]

And your point Bocker,
All it takes is one time...if I was HIV negative I would want as strict of a  screening of the blood supply, I would want to know that the risk of possible disease from a transfusion is very low. Why would I want to take a chance of getting any of several possible diseases just because I feel its wrong to be ask if I have had sex (EVEN ONE TIME) with a man. 

I've gone at this point ad nauseum in an earlier post, but will repeat here again, and then pull back from the topic. 

My point -- how is the blood supply safer by banning a man for life for having had sex with another man 30 YRS ago?  My entire argument in this area is to use science and not fear to dictate deferrals.  What made sense in the 1980's and 1990's does not make sense today, given better knowledge and technology.  I am NOT advocating that MSM should be allowed to donate carte blanche, I know that MSM are statistically more likely to be infected with HIV in the US -- I am saying let's use common sense and science.  I read in the paper today that about 50% of new infections in the US are in MSM -- we need to revamp the screening process to look at behaviors regardless of who one has sex with -- additionally, we need to rely on technology because people DO lie about their sexual history (not to mention possible illicit drug history) all the time.  Our current screening questionnaire offers a false sense of security -- it is the testing of the blood that holds the key.

Mike

[jack]

Newbie, where have you been?  Total insanity.

[newbie76]

Newbie, where have you been?  Total insanity.

Wow! Thanks Jack! Your post was really an eye opener! You changed my opinion on this at once!

[newbie76]

Anyway, thank you for all the replies to this thread.

I obviously haven't changed my mind on this (although Jack nearly convinced me!  ), but I do understand that many people have different views on this and it looks like I might be part of -yet another!- minority.

I can perhaps conceed that such regulations might have been, I don't want to use the word "appropriate" so I'll say "understandable" in the 80s, but today, with the progress the science has made and with the knowledge that HIV is not the "gay plague" that it used to be but that eterosexual people are the fastest growing group of HIV+ infected, the policies should perhaps be reviewed.

Again, I understand other people views on this.