U.S. opens door to a change in blood donation policy for gay men

[Howler63]

Individual risk assessments is something that is used for straight individuals and they can have blood infections such as HIV, why not use it for the LGBT community as well?

Christ, do we really have to re-hash this whole thing?

CDC:

In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.
Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.
Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

Why risk it?

Linkage: Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Christ, do we really have to re-hash this whole thing?

CDC:





Why risk it?

Linkage: Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

Jesus Christ. No one is denying that the LGBT community have higher rates of HIV. However there is no scientific proof to back up the ban and current policy of blood donations from the LGBT community. The current policies and the ban were rooted in fear and not science.
From the American Public Health Association:
"We have made enormous progress in our
medical and scientific understanding of HIV and our ability to treat and detect the virus since the
time of the original mandate. It is because of this progress and advancement in knowledge and
technology that we believe the proposed recommendations are scientifically unwarranted. We
recognize that the recommendation to move to a 12-month deferral policy is a step forward
relative to the current policy. However, such a recommendation continues to prevent low-risk
individuals from contributing to our blood supply and maintains discriminatory practices based
on outdated stereotypes. Instead, we strongly urge FDA to issue guidance that is grounded in
science to ensure a safe and robust blood supply

The selection of a donation deferral time period of 12-months is not based in science but appears
to be modeled after other countries’ choices and fears.It does not serve the public to make
public health decisions based on unknown threats. No specific scientific rationale is provided to
justify the 12-month exclusion. As demonstrated above, today’s NAT testing is highly accurate, specific and sensitive and when
fortified with a proper behavioral risk-based donor health questionnaire, donor education and
broad improvements in public health to reduce HIV transmission any deferral period exceeding
the window of possible non-detection by NAT is therefore unfounded.

Instead of protecting and enhancing the nation’s blood supply, a 12-month deferral represents a
missed opportunity to save the lives of people in need of blood. According to the Williams
Institute it is estimated that full elimination of a ban would result in 4.2 million newly eligible
donors and an estimated 615,300 additional pints of blood donated each year increasing the total
annual blood supply by 4 percent"

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2015-D-1211-0053

 

[sanman]

1.) No one is saying one has a "right" to donate blood.
2.) What is the issue with moving towards individual risk assessments?

What's the obsession with it? Worried about someone's "sacred right" to donate blood? There's no such right, and if you claim you're not saying so, then why are you making an issue out of being able to donate?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What's the obsession with it?

Obsession? Wouldnt call it an "obsession".

Worried about someone's "sacred right" to donate blood? There's no such right,

And no one is saying there is a right.... Your the only one hearing voices in your head thinking someone is holding a position that they have a right to donate blood.

and if you claim you're not saying so, then why are you making an issue out of being able to donate?

Because more peoples lives could be saved...

"According to the Williams Institute it is estimated that full elimination of a ban would result in 4.2 million newly eligible donors and an estimated 615,300 additional pints of blood donated each year increasing the total annual blood supply by 4 percent"

 

[eohrnberger]

It's quick enough and very accurate but obviously no test ever devised is 100%. The biggest problem are those who were recently infected in which case there might not be enough in the blood to test, and there is a risk from both straight and gay individuals, which is why they test every batch of blood for HIV and several other infectious diseases.

The current policy is to accept blood from gay men if they haven't had a sexual relationship in the past year. And from what the article said, the only change would be to go from a pretty arbitrary time period (1 year) to, potentially, an individual risk assessment. So a gay person in a monogamous relationship who has about the same risk of contracting HIV as you do MIGHT BE OK'd to donate.

I'm not an expert so I can't say whether that's a meaningful increase in risk for HIV or the other infectious diseases, but that's why they are requesting comments, backed by scientific evidence, from experts.

I'm no expert either, but I know that when AIDS first started to spread, there were cases of blood transfusions infecting previously uninfected people. In one case a hemophiliac if I recall. It was this that caused the present policy or a forerunner there of, to be put into place.

Things have changed since then. AIDS is far better understood, and it's no longer a death sentence, as drugs are now available to manage the infection.

Still, I have no desire to allow a recurrence of the blood bank being contaminated, or even the chance of it becoming so. That being said, in life there are always chances.

 

[JasperL]

What's the obsession with it? Worried about someone's "sacred right" to donate blood? There's no such right, and if you claim you're not saying so, then why are you making an issue out of being able to donate?

LOL, if we have an opinion on the issue and express that opinion in a thread on the topic, it is an 'obsession.'

So what is it called when you have a different opinion and express that different opinion on the same thread if not an 'obsession'? :roll:

 

[chromium]

It's the interests of the recipient of blood who are more important, not the interest of someone giving the blood. This isn't an issue of rights - nobody has a "right" to donate blood.

it's also in their interest to make sure there's enough blood donations. The policy was discouraging even those without any std or risk factors from donating. Even if the policy didn't change, someone can just lie, and even then, with modern testing the risk of infected blood going to a patient is about 1/1.5 million at worst. This hasn't happened in the entire country since 2008

there is far more tainted blood donated by promiscuous heterosexuals, who aren't screened out, than monogamous homosexuals. This is why the policy is nonsense. It also creates a stigma, not that i expect you'll care about that at all

 

[chromium]

Christ, do we really have to re-hash this whole thing?

CDC:





Why risk it?

Linkage: Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

Because it's not a risk at all. There hasn't been an HIV transfusion since 2008, even with all the "swinging single" heteros allowed to donate. Testing is highly accurate period

i know you'd rather bleed to death than receive 'gay blood' but not everyone sees it that way

 

[chromium]

A simple "Agreed." would have been more efficient.

He was questioning that you would complain in the other direction, about the current policy being political

Back in the 1980s it may have made sense. I don't know. I'd like to learn more about the accuracy of testing back then and the discussions behind closed doors. But in the past 10 years at least, its continuation is unjustifiable scientifically or ethically

 

[Taylor]

Because it's not a risk at all. There hasn't been an HIV transfusion since 2008, even with all the "swinging single" heteros allowed to donate.

That blood came from was from a married bisexual man: "During his interview, the donor reported he was married but had sex with both men and women outside of his marriage, including just before his June 2008 donation. He indicated that the sex often was anonymous and occurred while he was intoxicated."

 

[chromium]

That blood came from was from a married bisexual man: "During his interview, the donor reported he was married but had sex with both men and women outside of his marriage, including just before his June 2008 donation. He indicated that the sex often was anonymous and occurred while he was intoxicated."

Yeah, in africa too i guess, where there's a stigma against even monogamous homosexuality, it seems that heterosexuals are the most infected group, because gay/bi men with stds went around infecting unsuspecting females...who infected others

Homophobes just don't grasp how their discriminatory policies work against themselves

 

[radcen]

He was questioning that you would complain in the other direction, about the current policy being political

Back in the 1980s it may have made sense. I don't know. I'd like to learn more about the accuracy of testing back then and the discussions behind closed doors. But in the past 10 years at least, its continuation is unjustifiable scientifically or ethically

Probably, but he tends to see anything less than salivating enthusiastic agreement as dissent, too.

But anyway, yeah, back in the 1980s I am ok that they erred on the said of caution, but like you I consider it unjustifiable that it lasted anywhere near as long as it did. In this case I do not consider it political that this is being done, but I have seen what I believe to be political motivations in other scenarios. My primary point is that science isn't as pure and apolitical as some want to believe. It can have political motivations as well, and sometimes does, we just need to be discerning.

Someone here made a point about heterosexual promiscuous people being ok, and that was a very good point.

 

[clownboy]

Short people and skinny people can't donate either.

 

[sanman]

it's also in their interest to make sure there's enough blood donations. The policy was discouraging even those without any std or risk factors from donating. Even if the policy didn't change, someone can just lie, and even then, with modern testing the risk of infected blood going to a patient is about 1/1.5 million at worst. This hasn't happened in the entire country since 2008

there is far more tainted blood donated by promiscuous heterosexuals, who aren't screened out, than monogamous homosexuals. This is why the policy is nonsense. It also creates a stigma, not that i expect you'll care about that at all

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the interests of blood recipients, when it's obvious that you're speaking on behalf of the "right" of homosexuals to donate blood. Your "interest" in the recipients of blood seems to be a mask for your real interest - gay rights. Again, I wish to emphasize that nobody has a "right" to donate blood, and thus it's inappropriate to see this as a discrimination issue.

 

[JasperL]

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the interests of blood recipients, when it's obvious that you're speaking on behalf of the "right" of homosexuals to donate blood. Your "interest" in the recipients of blood seems to be a mask for your real interest - gay rights. Again, I wish to emphasize that nobody has a "right" to donate blood, and thus it's inappropriate to see this as a discrimination issue.

I've seen no one claim that there is a 'right' to donate blood and it is obviously a "discrimination" issue. The question at hand is whether the discrimination against sexually active homosexuals makes sense, is backed by the science and available evidence, and whether or not an individual risk assessment will be more or less effective as a way to screen risky donors and protect the blood supply from contamination.

It might help if you quit beating up straw men and addressed the issue.

 

[chromium]

Probably, but he tends to see anything less than salivating enthusiastic agreement as dissent, too.

But anyway, yeah, back in the 1980s I am ok that they erred on the said of caution, but like you I consider it unjustifiable that it lasted anywhere near as long as it did. In this case I do not consider it political that this is being done, but I have seen what I believe to be political motivations in other scenarios. My primary point is that science isn't as pure and apolitical as some want to believe. It can have political motivations as well, and sometimes does, we just need to be discerning.

Someone here made a point about heterosexual promiscuous people being ok, and that was a very good point.

yeah that was me...

i understand that 75% of new infections are from gay men in the under 24 demographic, but that still leaves 25%, most of whom aren't screened out at all simply because they're heterosexual. Yet there has been no infected transfusions in several years due to testing always catching them

the 500k gay men with diagnosed stds will remain banned. Among the other 80%, those small # who try to donate blood and haven't been diagnosed (asymptomatic or whatever) will surely be screened out by the new risk assessment, or by testing, just like the promiscuous heteros

the posters here who are loudest against this have offered no evidence as to why there would be a sudden influx of infected transfusions. They should be able to find that if this is really political pandering.

 

[chromium]

I've seen no one claim that there is a 'right' to donate blood and it is obviously a "discrimination" issue. The question at hand is whether the discrimination against sexually active homosexuals makes sense, is backed by the science and available evidence, and whether or not an individual risk assessment will be more or less effective as a way to screen risky donors and protect the blood supply from contamination.

It might help if you quit beating up straw men and addressed the issue.

it's the same ones who argued to no end against the "one time only, even if protection was used" hysterical sweeping ban that applied to practically 100% of gay men. There was another thread on that. Now they expect us to believe they care about science? Lol

Even the 12 month ban makes little sense, when seroconversion occurs within 6 months

 

[chromium]

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the interests of blood recipients, when it's obvious that you're speaking on behalf of the "right" of homosexuals to donate blood. Your "interest" in the recipients of blood seems to be a mask for your real interest - gay rights. Again, I wish to emphasize that nobody has a "right" to donate blood, and thus it's inappropriate to see this as a discrimination issue.

yeah cause i couldn't even conceivably need a blood transfusion myself someday, or gay men like the survivors at pulse have never needed a transfusion

whatever, there are plenty other fronts for gay rights that are far more pressing. I wouldn't even be in this thread if not for the usual gay bashing that follows even the slightest progress. So blame yourself for that

 

[DA60]

I don't hate the world, just the stupidity of some people.

I hear you.

But I don't mind stupidity (they can't help it if they are not intelligent), just arrogance and insensitivity.

 

[DA60]

The bottom line is the FDA know more about this stuff then probably anyone on here.

If they limit certain groups from giving blood due to safety concerns I could care less if that group is ticked about it.

No one is going to die because they cannot donate blood...sheesh.

 

[kamikaze483]

What's the obsession with it? Worried about someone's "sacred right" to donate blood? There's no such right, and if you claim you're not saying so, then why are you making an issue out of being able to donate?

You seem to be trolling for a reaction here, as throughout this thread your comments haven't made very much sense. I don't think anyone has the "right" to donate blood and I certainly don't see this issue as a gay rights issue. Its a public health issue. Blood is an organ that is the same in a straight person as it is in a gay person. Why in the world would anyone not support the selfless efforts of anyone to help during a blood shortage?

 

[Howler63]

Jesus Christ. No one is denying that the LGBT community have higher rates of HIV. However there is no scientific proof to back up the ban and current policy of blood donations from the LGBT community. The current policies and the ban were rooted in fear and not science.
From the American Public Health Association:
"We have made enormous progress in our
medical and scientific understanding of HIV and our ability to treat and detect the virus since the
time of the original mandate. It is because of this progress and advancement in knowledge and
technology that we believe the proposed recommendations are scientifically unwarranted. We
recognize that the recommendation to move to a 12-month deferral policy is a step forward
relative to the current policy. However, such a recommendation continues to prevent low-risk
individuals from contributing to our blood supply and maintains discriminatory practices based
on outdated stereotypes. Instead, we strongly urge FDA to issue guidance that is grounded in
science to ensure a safe and robust blood supply

The selection of a donation deferral time period of 12-months is not based in science but appears
to be modeled after other countries’ choices and fears.It does not serve the public to make
public health decisions based on unknown threats. No specific scientific rationale is provided to
justify the 12-month exclusion. As demonstrated above, today’s NAT testing is highly accurate, specific and sensitive and when
fortified with a proper behavioral risk-based donor health questionnaire, donor education and
broad improvements in public health to reduce HIV transmission any deferral period exceeding
the window of possible non-detection by NAT is therefore unfounded.

Instead of protecting and enhancing the nation’s blood supply, a 12-month deferral represents a
missed opportunity to save the lives of people in need of blood. According to the Williams
Institute it is estimated that full elimination of a ban would result in 4.2 million newly eligible
donors and an estimated 615,300 additional pints of blood donated each year increasing the total
annual blood supply by 4 percent"

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2015-D-1211-0053

Again WHY TAKE THE CHANCE?

 

[Howler63]

Because it's not a risk at all. There hasn't been an HIV transfusion since 2008, even with all the "swinging single" heteros allowed to donate. Testing is highly accurate period

i know you'd rather bleed to death than receive 'gay blood' but not everyone sees it that way

You know why there hasn't been an HIV transfusion since 2008 and rarely before then? Hmmm? Due to gays being BANNED from infecting the blood supply. Jesus, it ain't rocket science. If the system is clean now, why take a chance on tainting it? Just to make homos 'feel' better about being homos?

 

[Howler63]

You seem to be trolling for a reaction here, as throughout this thread your comments haven't made very much sense. I don't think anyone has the "right" to donate blood and I certainly don't see this issue as a gay rights issue. Its a public health issue. Blood is an organ that is the same in a straight person as it is in a gay person. Why in the world would anyone not support the selfless efforts of anyone to help during a blood shortage?

Are people dying due to a shortage of blood? I've never heard of any.

 

[Nilly]

Again WHY TAKE THE CHANCE?

Because without that blood people will die???