FDA To End Full Ban On Blood Donations From Gay, Bisexual Men

Qapiojg · 2014-12-24T11:37:30+00:00

the agency will take the necessary steps to recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact.

At least it's progress, still not where it needs to be though.

HashtagRebbit · 2014-12-24T10:42:05+00:00

that's a terrible idea. Tens of thousands of people were infected with HIV through blood transfusions. Of course it is vigorously tested now but it is still safer to exclude high risk groups such as drug users and straight people who have slept with many partners recently.

It was never enforced because doctors are homophobic.

devious29 · 2014-12-24T16:52:33+00:00

I can't speak for the US, but the UK ended their full ban in 2011, based on their scientific advice, following improvements in testing for things (HIV being the most obvious, but not the only pathogen).

I do find it disconcerting that people think that only donations from particular risk groups are tested. Is that really the case in the US?

In the UK all donations from all donors (regardless of their relative risk) are tested for Syphilis, HepB, HepC, HIV and HTLV as a matter of routine, as well as testing for Malaria, T cruzi and West Nile Virus for anyone who has been to areas where they are endemic.

2014-12-24T19:43:49+00:00

recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact.

Oh, just 1 year is it?

This might allow for a few more bisexual men, but actually gay men are still pretty much excluded from it.

But this pressure to include sexually active gay men in blood donations is retarded. Including them would increase the amount of yearly HIV transmissions. Sure we could screen for it more, but that would consume more resources, and we absolutely do have to keep cost-benefit in mind.

When we decide how we divide resources, especially in the medical field, we have to be pragmatic, we can't expend extra resources so that we can pander to someones hurt feefees.

2014-12-24T15:37:56+00:00

This is good news for everyone. I fully support temp-bans based on risk factors like promiscuity, anal sex, endoscopy, not using contraceptives etc., but declaring MSMs to be a special risk when it comes to these factors is a-statistical nonsense.

Certainly the average gay man is more likely to be HIV positive than the average straight person, but only because of promiscuity, lack of contraceptives, anal sex and other risky behaviours. If a straight woman, for example, engages in the same behaviour, chances are she faces a similar risk.

At this point an opponent of this point will usually bring up the issue that gay men aren't just more likely to engage in risky behaviour, they're also doing so in a pool of partners who are more likely to be HIV positive. This is true, gay men are more likely to be HIV positve than straight people, but our hypothetical serial-unprotected-female-sodomite isn't having sex with the general straight population, she's almost certainly having sex with a subset of that population who engage in similar practices to those in the gay community, so it's a statistical lie to suggest she's less at risk merely because other people who share her orientation (but not her bed) act more safely.

That would be like saying someone driving a yellow car probably spends more time behind the wheel than the average motorist because that's the stat for yellow cars (when in fact this anomoly is produced by taxi drivers, not yellow paint).

There are still plenty of other safeguards meaning that gay men who are actually at risk of HIV are not included in the pool, all this means is that guy who had protected anal sex with one man ten years ago and caught no diseases as a result is not prevented from giving much needed blood (also it ends a tiny little piece of misandry and homophobia, but that's secondary).

rg57 · 2014-12-27T09:06:41+00:00

Here's my bottom line.

I'm a universal donor. I have impeccably-healthy blood. And the FDA would prefer to have you die on the operating table, rather than let me give it to you, because instead of actually testing the blood, they tell me "nyah nyah you have cooties".

Isn't it time we stop this juvenile game, and actually test the blood?

(By the way, I qualify for the one-year thing due to a separation... but I will NOT give it under such a limitation)

Title	FDA To End Full Ban On Blood Donations From Gay, Bisexual Men
Author	FrostytheSnowColt
Upvotes	32
Comments	50
Date	December 24, 2014 5:48 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2q94vt/fda_to_end_full_ban_on_blood_donations_from_gay/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/fda-to-end-full-ban-on-blood-donations-from-gay.991748 https://theredarchive.com/post/991748

Comments