Why is it that blood donation centers refuse gay men?

Question

I very good friend of mine just recently pointed this out to me. I am a lesbian and had never thought of it before, because it had not pertained to me. But ever since he brought this up with me I feel sorry for him, I can donate blood at any time yet whenever he has gone in to donate they turn him away for having sex with another man after 1970. Not only that be they assume that he needs to see and HIV clinic. I've never been so insulted before in my life, he's very sweet and kind and is always careful with his dates. Besides don't they screen the blood anyway? So why should it matter? I just seems like they're using it as an excuse to pick him out and humiliate him for trying to donate. And I used to wonder why people didn't donate more! Since then I haven't given because I feel ashamed for him, this seems incredibly unfair. And they could gain so much more if he gave, he's O+!

Anyone else want to weigh in on the matter?

Additional Details

P.S. Why is it always that people are so assuming that gay men are more at risk for HIV or are non-monogamous? Or that they are not open and honest with their partners about their sexual history? Just because he is gay is not a reason to shun him from the same options as other people. They will test all the blood anyways and his blood could save lives, but is refused due to an outdated and unjust rule.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

The justification of banning gay men from giving blood is based on their increased rate of HIV infection in the United States. It isn't a ban put in place by any of the agencies which collect blood, the major ones of which (Red Cross, American Association of Blood Banks, and America's Blood Centers) have all requested that the lifetime ban be revised to a one year ban after sexual contact with another male-- which is the same as the ban on most other groups with a higher risk of contracting HIV.

The FDA, however, ultimately rejected their request, saying that at present, the screening process was not 100% effective, and that even if only one in a million cases of HIV failed to be detected (which is the failure rate for current screening tests), enough transfusions of blood products take place in the United States that a one in a million failure rate could lead to a significant increase in HIV+ blood entering into the blood supply.

If you'd care to read a more in depth explanation of the FDA's reasoning, you may find their official explanation here:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

To sum up, though, they essentially say they're not willing to risk it since gay males making an initial donation are anywhere between 800 times more likely than first time donors in the general population, and 8000 times more likely than repeat donors in the general population, to be HIV positive, and the tests still aren't infallible (no matter how insignificant their failure rate happens to be).

So, is it fair?

It doesn't sound like it to me. To be honest, I think they're grasping at straws. Yes, twenty new cases of HIV per year would be an unfortunate thing, and no one should suggest it isn't, but this is a group that's perfectly willing to allow surgical procedures with 20% and 30% mortality rates proceed because they figure the seventy to eighty percent of people they can save far outweighs the number that die in the attempt, especially if the only other option is to with-hold treatment and run a much greater risk of death.

To believe that's okay, and then throw a fit because your attempt to increase your blood supply to adequate levels comes with a 0.000001% chance something will go wrong, is a ridiculous double standard. All medical practices come with risk. On that front, it's a numbers game, and in this particular numbers game, one in a million happens to be absolutely golden odds.

I think the FDA is simply throwing that excuse out there as a pretext for continuing to discriminate and symbolically cut gay males out of the general population, to stigmatize them as somehow being sick or diseased, even though there isn't a medically compelling reason for them to do so... which isn't surprising given the homophobia of the current administration and its wont to interfere in the affairs of government agencies, especially scientific ones, for its own political and ideological ends.

In the end, though, it's their choice to make, not mine. I'm just one of the masses stuck living with the outcome of their decision.

Oh, and because the answers thus far have been a bit inaccurate when it comes to knowledge of blood (O+ blood is neither rare, nor the universal donor type), I have one more link, for those who would like to learn a bit more:

http://www.bloodbook.com/type-facts.html

Answer 2

because people suck and americans are a-holes.

Answer 3

Yeah, if they screen the blood anyway, I don't see the problem with drawing it, espcially if they are volunteering it.

Wow, O blood :( That's pretty rare too. It's a shame when people just sincerely want to help others.

EDIT: And don't tell me you can't tell HIV always. My mom sells hospital and lab supplies with her company and she's shown me an HIV test that can give results in a couple minutes =/ She says technology is really coming a long with these kinds of tests. Even if HIV is the dormant form of AIDs, it is still detectable.

Answer 4

It shouldn't matter at all. It was a rule set up by the blood agencies when little was known about HIV. The rule is now archaic and should be abolished. I was very ill and got many blood products..I didn't care where they came from (of course I didn't want HIV) those people saved my life. ---and I would like to be able to return the favour.

Answer 5

Yes, I agree. Some policies desperately need to be reviewed in today's context.

Answer 6

I heard about that when I watched QAF season 5 (cried during the 10th episode...). Apparently, they think that gays are at too high a risk that they are incapable of donating blood, which really is BS to me.

Answer 7

WHAT! I NEVER HEARD THAT IN MY SHORT 19 YEARS OF LIFE! Ingorant idiots. O+ Is the Universal Donor. The probably thought SOMETHING DUMB like "He may have AIDS," or "He will make someone gay." Stupid, Stupid people. THEY HAVE MORE TO LOSE! HIS BLOOD COULD HAVE SAVED A DYING CHILD OR SOMEONE WITH A FAMILY.

Answer 8

to prevent a rise in gay vampires

Answer 9

Because the big boss is a homophobe

Answer 10

The fact of the matter is that the HIV virus is predominantly found in that particular population in our society and it is only common sense not to accept blood donations from individuals that are at risk of having been in contact with a source and risk spreading the virus by blood transfusion. Remember, it can take a number of years for someone who has had contact with an infected person to seroconvert to an HIV status and many of the male gay population are not monogamous.
The fact that your friend is sweet and kind and always careful with his dates is not relevant. It's a public safety issue. How does he know that the guy he has sexual relations with is not HIV+ ?

Answer 11

The reasons that the American Red Cross refused to allow gay men to donate their blood is because:

1) They do not want gay men to use the American Red
Cross as an instrument in determining whether they have
HIV.

2) There is a high rate of HIV and Aids in the community.

This is no different when a woman or a man has taken money for sex. Prostitution is a high risk category, and the ARC does not allow these people to give blood as well as those who shoot up and take drugs. In addition, the ARC does not allow those who have been outside of the US (for example) Africa where HIV and AIDS are is rampant.

The bottom line is that they want to protect the blood supply as well as instill confidence in the public that the blood supply is not tainted.

You probably should think over your position in not giving blood. You just may need blood one day from the ARC. Also, perhaps your blood will be needed to help out one of our soldiers whose bleeding heavily because his/her arm or leg has been blow off.

As far as your friend, he should be encouraging you to give blood. Perhaps one day he will need blood.

Source(s):

Blood donor for thirty years.

Answer 12

I've never heard of this kind of discrimination before.

Definitely, where I live gay men are perfectly able to donating blood - and it's most welcome.

You must be living in a Republican state...

Answer 13

Gay men screw each other in the booty and that's risky behavior in terms of blood born pathogens. That's why. There's no mystery there.
They also won't take your blood if you've gotten tattoos or used syringes and guess what, that's risky behavior too!
I know if i get a transfusion, I want blood from a hardcore bible thumping married vegetarian! That blood better be clean in ways I can't even understand!

Answer 14

Sounds rather discriminative. Surely the question should be "have you slept around?" as you're more likely to get it that way whatever your sexuality.

Having anal sex with a guy who doesn't have HIV/AIDS will not give you HIV/AIDS, people. Get your facts right.

Source(s):

Posted with [quickanswers]

Answer 15

It is discrimination, plain and simple, and as I too was turned away for the very same reason, I know how your friend feels. I am forty-five going on twenty, and have never been promiscuous, and yet, because of my sexuality I'm considered high risk, and unfairly categorized. They don't turn away straight men, or men thought to be straight, but gay men unjustifiably so, are denied the right to contribute. Furthermore, if all donors are thoroughly screened and they ought to be, why is it that homosexual men are treated with such disregard? We are turned away without just cause, and embarrassed in the process. Again, it is discrimination, plain and simple. I guess it pays, to be straight.

Answer 16

I've been HIV-negative my entire life and plan to remain so, but for the very reason your friend was turned down, I avoid the blood drives at work and don't donate. I really do want to help my community, but why risk the humiliation? And I'm sure I'm not the only gay man who is in this situation.

I know that the time may come when I need blood myself, but the ARC doesn't want mine, even at a time when supplies are most desperately needed. Oh, poor THEM. They will only come around when the blood supplies are close to non-existent. Sad but true.

Answer 17

If they're still going by this criteria they are brain dead. All donated blood should be tested. Anybody can lie about their sexual behavior, drug use, etc. Trusting people to be completely honest about these things is foolish and thinking straight people can't get HIV is stupid.

Answer 18

The FDA says that as a group, men who have sex with men (MSM), carry an increased risk of HIV, hepatitis B and other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion. They point out this decision not unique to the United States and quote a European Union directive that also concurs with this policy.

As the policy stands, a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977, even once,is deferred from giving blood for the rest of his life.

Source(s):

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71959.php

Answer 19

I'm 0- and can't give. I used to give all the time when I was younger, because it's rare and pretty much a universal donor.

The theory is that blood screening won't pick up on a recent contraction of the disease. The reality of it is that it won't pick up a recent contraction of the disease - by either straights or gays.

It was implemented in the 80's during gay hysteria, and is still on the books. It's shameful, because I donated blood out of a sense of civic duty, and still would.

Answer 20

I donate blood, I just don't tell them I'm gay. It's none of their business who I sleep with. If it's a blood bank they need to screen the hetrosexuals as well as the gay people. Blood is all the same no matter what the person's sexuality is.

Answer 21

beacuse 67% of new aids cases are found in gay and bisexual men it was decided that ( even with blood screening which is not 100% effective) The risk of contaminating the blood supply was too great and gay men have been considered the highest risk group for HIV and therefore forbidden to donate blood since 1977.

Answer 22

It is because of HIV scare. Has been this way for many years now. All are just playing it very safe.