I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Dialysis Discussion => Dialysis: News Articles => Topic started by: Sara on May 23, 2007, 07:07:59 PM
-
Just read the article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18827137/
WASHINGTON - Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.
The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its long-standing policy on its Web site Wednesday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”
“I am disappointed, I must confess,” said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America’s Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation’s blood supply.
Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.
In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America’s Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.
In a document posted Wednesday, the FDA said it would change its policy if given data that show doing so wouldn’t pose a “significant and preventable” risk to blood recipients.
“It is a way of saying, ‘Whatever was presented to us was not sufficient to make us change our minds,”’ Bianco said.
The FDA said HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect the virus 100 percent of the time. The estimated HIV risk from a unit of blood is currently about one per 2 million in the United States, according to the agency.
Critics of the exclusionary policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays. The FDA recognized the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory.
Anyone who’s used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood.
----------------(end article)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Does this extend to organ donation as well?
EDITED: Moved post to proper thread - Goofynina/Admin.
-
OK, now hold on now, my cousin(s) are gay, what if one of the family members needed blood? can they give it to them? What if they have been with the same one and only partner? And as far as intravenous users, what difference is it if they used a needle for drugs or got a tattoo? I just found out an old friend of mine has Hep C due to dirty needles used while getting tattoo's, are they going to ban all them too? :popcorn;
-
you can't donat blood for 1 year after tatoo
-
There's no reason to prevent a gay man from donating an organ. They certainly would test for any possible disease before actually doing the transplant, and it's not likely they would miss any sign of HIV in the repeated testing a donor must go though in order to donate.
I think the banned for life is ridiculous. They are just going to automatically assume that every gay man has promiscuous, unsafe sex? Not to mention they are assuming that everyone is willing to tell the truth when asked such a question. . . can you imagine having a blood drive at work, and being asked that in front of all your coworkers?
I can't donate blood anyhow, but when I volunteered during a blood drive, I sure don't remember them asking that question! I don't remember them asking any of the women if they had ever been paid for sex either, though!
-
As long as the blood comes back disease free and compatable it should make no difference if they are gay or not.
-
As long as the blood comes back disease free and compatable it should make no difference if they are gay or not.
That's what I think too. And besides, aren't they saying now the fastest growing group with HIV/AIDS is young people, or minorities, or something? All I know is, it's not gay men. The FDA is giving up a lot of good blood! :thumbdown;
-
The ban makes sense. HIV has a long incubation period, something like 6 months. It is possible that a person could be infected and that infection would not show up in standard tests for months to come. Meanwhile some baby, elderly person, or kidney patient gets that blood.
Looking at this from the standpoint of who is likely to harbor HIV and indeed from the origins of this infection in much of the human population this ban makes perfect sense.
-
The ban makes sense. HIV has a long incubation period, something like 6 months. It is possible that a person could be infected and that infection would not show up in standard tests for months to come. Meanwhile some baby, elderly person, or kidney patient gets that blood.
Looking at this from the standpoint of who is likely to harbor HIV and indeed from the origins of this infection in much of the human population this ban makes perfect sense.
You can also get AIDS from a mosquito bite too, cant you? :thumbdown;
-
You can also get AIDS from a mosquito bite too, cant you?
NO you Can't get AIDS from a mosquito bite- that is a myth.
There are 2 HIV positives among the people I love.... the gay male culture does promote a lot of partners, I know there are always the few who have long-term commitments, but the majority do not have relationships that last years and years, anonymous, casual sex is part of the lifestyle. They, as a group, are too risky because like livecam said-there is an incubation period when the AIDS test is not always effective.
I do think discrimination is a terribly wrong thing....but this is just about protection.
-
But that 6 month incubation period is not exclusive to gay men - it's the same in straight men and women, children, etc.
-
There's no reason to prevent a gay man from donating an organ. They certainly would test for any possible disease before actually doing the transplant, and it's not likely they would miss any sign of HIV in the repeated testing a donor must go though in order to donate.
I think the banned for life is ridiculous. They are just going to automatically assume that every gay man has promiscuous, unsafe sex? Not to mention they are assuming that everyone is willing to tell the truth when asked such a question. . . can you imagine having a blood drive at work, and being asked that in front of all your coworkers?
I can't donate blood anyhow, but when I volunteered during a blood drive, I sure don't remember them asking that question! I don't remember them asking any of the women if they had ever been paid for sex either, though!
Actually HIV infected organs have slipped through and been transplanted.
Granted not all gays lead a promiscuous lifestyle, however as a group they are very high risk. Easier to exclude the entire group on something like this. Just as all IV drug users as a group are excluded are they not?
The Red Cross says they have a test to detect a 10-21 day infection. However the Red Cross has a historic pattern of violating blood safety laws and regulations and they have infected numerous people with HIV because of their poor work in this area. They are hardly the ones to be trusted in the matter.
-
I am very liberal and very supportive of gay rights, BUT this is one law that needs to be. Anyone that has participated in high risk activities, whether gay or straight, shouldn't be donating.
-
Anyone that has participated in high risk activities, whether gay or straight, shouldn't be donating.
I agree. But they aren't banning all people who have multiple partners and/or unprotected sex. It's just focusing on gay men.
-
because as a group they are very high risk- the kind of sexual practice they engage in particular makes them higher risk then a heterosexual having 'regular' sex-
not to get too graphic, but every single time you engage in anal intercourse there are microscopic breaks in the walls of the colon that allows a direct way to the bloodstream. Heterosexual intercourse does not have the same risk. yes still a risk--but not the same risk.
-
because as a group they are very high risk- the kind of sexual practice they engage in particular makes them higher risk then a heterosexual having 'regular' sex-
not to get too graphic, but every single time you engage in anal intercourse there are microscopic breaks in the walls of the colon that allows a direct way to the bloodstream. Heterosexual intercourse does not have the same risk. yes still a risk--but not the same risk.
:o :o :o :o :o ::) ;)
-
because as a group they are very high risk- the kind of sexual practice they engage in particular makes them higher risk then a heterosexual having 'regular' sex-
not to get too graphic, but every single time you engage in anal intercourse there are microscopic breaks in the walls of the colon that allows a direct way to the bloodstream. Heterosexual intercourse does not have the same risk. yes still a risk--but not the same risk.
Not to be gross here but I know of two couples I know who regularly engage in this activity and they're straight as can be.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Donna :bandance;
-
:o
-
because as a group they are very high risk- the kind of sexual practice they engage in particular makes them higher risk then a heterosexual having 'regular' sex-
not to get too graphic, but every single time you engage in anal intercourse there are microscopic breaks in the walls of the colon that allows a direct way to the bloodstream. Heterosexual intercourse does not have the same risk. yes still a risk--but not the same risk.
Not to be gross here but I know of two couples I know who regularly engage in this activity and they're straight as can be.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Donna :bandance;
It doesn't matter what orientation you are lol- its all about percentages of the population- the majority of at risk -- LOL :rofl; :rofl;
-
I agree with chickenlittle's post.
Anyone who participates in high risk activities like that SHOULD NOT donate. Going to high risk countries, tattoo's, anal sex... etc.
BUT, I think the outright ban on gays is illegal and wrong. They should ask the question, have you participated in anal sex along with the tattoo question and foreign country question. The question should not be, Are you gay? Sexual orientation is not the problem, its some practice's of it that causes the problem.
Does that make since?
Jaybire
-
My husband has been a blood donor for a number of years. He's given over 5 gallons of blood but recently received notice from our local blood donor center that he would no longer be acceptable as a donor. During one of their routine checks on his blood following donation, he tested positive for Hepatitis. He's not gay ;), has never used intervenous drugs, never had a blood transfusion or done any type of thing that would expose him to this. They recommended he follow up with our family doctor which he did immediately. Testing came back negative. Our doctor told him that the blood center must have gotten a false positive result and that he definitely doesn't have nor has ever had hepatitis. But because of their rules, he is now permanently banned from donating. It's a shame that they can make mistakes like this and we lose out on blood donations as a result. Because I can't donate and have received so many blood transfusions over the years, this was one small way we felt we were able to pay something back. On the other hand; having received so many transfusions, it is somewhat of a comfort to know that blood centers are doing all they can to insure the quality of the blood we are receiving and if that means banning people with certain lifestyle choices, so be it.
-
Aww Missis, sorry to hear about your hubby not being able to donate any longer, please give him a great big THANK YOU for me for all he did donate in the past cuz it could've been my life or one of my loved one's life he could've been saving :) He did all he could do, no worries, we still love him ;) :cuddle;
-
I agree with chickenlittle's post.
Anyone who participates in high risk activities like that SHOULD NOT donate. Going to high risk countries, tattoo's, anal sex... etc.
BUT, I think the outright ban on gays is illegal and wrong. They should ask the question, have you participated in anal sex along with the tattoo question and foreign country question. The question should not be, Are you gay? Sexual orientation is not the problem, its some practice's of it that causes the problem.
Does that make since?
Jaybire
That, Jay, makes plenty of sense - it doesn't single out homosexuals, just those with high-risk behavior.
-
Thanks Goofynina, I'll do just that! He was pretty upset at first but has come to accept their decision. I'm still hoping we can find out that he can still contribute someway ... like in contributing a kidney to me!!