Ban kept for gay men donating blood

[Autumn2004]

I havent given my opinion yet even though I was the person that posted the "nonstory". I feel like it is a story, is valid, and some people feel that they should be allowed to donate.

Honestly until the blood is proven to be safe I do feel nervous. If I was single and using condoms with sex I would still be nervous. But not just nervous if its a gay individual, I would feel that way with anyone. I knew one person with aids and let me tell you, its not pretty. I pray I never get it.

My aunt had colon cancer, lost alot of blood and needed a transfusion two years ago. She is now battling hepatitis C because of it. If you ask her if she would have changed things she will tell you no, she wouldnt be alive today without the blood that infected her.

If I had a choice of getting blood from a gay individual who is in a monogamus relationship I would gladly take him over my uncle and many other cheaters that I know. Honestly if your in the position of needing blood most of the time you will die without it. I would rather chance getting something from it then dying because I was afraid of what was in it or not having it available due to a shortage.

I did a thesis on hiv mostly in africa though. Basically aids cells are 500 times smaller than sperm. Sperm can go through a condom. How protected do you feel? I feel there are many things they dont tell us about aids but I wont get into them since they are just theory and nothing is fact based. I understand why they dont share the information as they dont want to create a panic.

Back to the subject though, the test that detects aids virus picks up antibodies made by your body. To make those antibodies it has to be in your system for some time. For some individuals it can take as long as a year to show up. I doubt aids tests will improve since so far they still have to wait for your body to respond especially with the changing strains of it.
I am hopeful for alternative blood in the future.

 

[angelmom]

I havent given my opinion yet even though I was the person that posted the "nonstory". I feel like it is a story, is valid, and some people feel that they should be allowed to donate.

Sorry! Didn't mean to make you feel that this was not worthy of being posted. It is!

What I meant by "non story" is that the media seems to be making it into something it is not at a time when political careers are being made and ended. It's a landmine that could get almost anyone - a democrat could speak off the cuff and make an inappropriate joke *poof!* or a republican could get away from his handlers and speak extemporaneously about risk factors and *poof!* they're gone. All over a ban that has been in place for 24 years, despite the test that has been around for 22 years. So the FDA and the collection agencies don't see eye to eye. BFD. Is it really news? Or something else. I hate to sound like someone from the PP, but come on. Was anyone talking about this ban before?

 

[IrishMist]

Receiving a blood transfusion involves risk. IMO, this ban is akin to them making you take your shoes off at the airport. Big show to make folks feel safe, when in reality, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

 

[2sisters]

The majority of blood donors have participated in high risk activites. How many people have donated blood and had unprotected sex? or recived blood in the 80's maybe? Truthfully, I have been unsafe. heck, for all I know my husband has chaeated on me. Who really knows for sure? Nobody would have thought my dad liked to go to "massage parlors" or go home with strippers but he did, putting my mother and my sisters and I at risk. back then his risky behavior could have given my mother a disease. She has never had to tell that to the blood mobile though. My sister has been on overseas tours with the Navy and has never been turned down. I thought traveling out of the country put you in a risk group. Yes, statistically gay men have a higher instance of HIV, but blacks have a high risk too and nobody would dream of telling someone they can't donate b/c of the color of their skin. Could you imagine the lawsuits? Why is it ok to be homophobic but not racist?
Why not just test and retest and have a high standard on testing and quality control and be done with it?

 

[southcitymom]

Receiving a blood transfusion involves risk. IMO, this ban is akin to them making you take your shoes off at the airport. Big show to make folks feel safe, when in reality, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Nova]

Any high risk group should not be able to donate. If 500 folks from a high risk group donate, and one little kid dies as a result, IMO, it is not worth it.

Who cares if we offend some folks in an (overzealous?) attempt to keep the blood safe for our loved ones??

Give it another 5 years with these standards, and see what happens. Being TOOOOO careful is NOT a bad thing, if it is my kid that needs the transfusion.

It'll be a very bad thing if your kid needs a transfusion and can't get one because the blood supply is exhausted.

I think nearly everyone here has agreed that "offending people" isn't the issue, one way or the other.

 

[Ang50]

Jumping OT with you...the one case I remember specifically was when the mom and dad were both Rh- and the mom was refusing the Rhogam shot. Which, if she was 100% sure that the baby's father was Rh-, is fine. But the doctors were nervous b/c, as you pointed out, the shot is standard. It's a safety thing. Life and death, no kidding. And few women want to admit that they are carrying another man's child in front of their husband and a slew of other people, and have it written down on a medical chart where it could be used against them later. The doctors pressed, even made her husband leave the room and asked AGAIN, and she got :furious: . I felt for both sides. Anyway, that's the story.

Thanks for filling me in... I was curious. I would have been pissed too - the dr could have made it clear about the DIRE consequences of refusing the shot. Actually - it's not the baby she's carrying that's at risk, but if she would try to get pregnant in the future - her body will have antibodies against + blood and likely cause a future miscarriage.

At any rate, asking and discussing it like that, with the likelihood that someone would spill the beans off the med chart later... forget it. If I had cheated, I'd go in quietly for the shot on another day.

 

[pedinurse]

This is off topic some - but I'm curious. I'm Rh- and my doctors just told me that I *had* to get the Rhogam shot. They didn't concern themselves with the + or - of my husband.

The second pregnancy they did offer that I could have him come in and get tested and then I could avoid the shot. They didn't know of his needle phobia or his size, or else they wouldn't have offered - I guarantee. I took one for the team and got the shot.

So why are they questioning the mothers after a loss? Because the mothers voluntarily didn't get the shot? It seems to me that a dr trying to diagnose infertility or multiple miscarriages would explain how your body builds antibodies and then mention if a father was + that could contribute to it. No reason to delve into extramarital affairs... It just seems an unnecessary and insensitive thing.

I think the thought is that when you are negative it is better to just assume that mother has been sensitized and do it - because the risk of not doing it is great. In addition, many women become pregnant and do not even know it. If a negative woman had a previous unknown pregnancy with a positive male, and miscarried without knowing, she could be sensitized.
A good bedside manner goes a LONG way in these manners! Basically, it is more prudent to just do it with negative mothers than risk. I'm sorry you were treated that way - I would have been irritated too! Let's just say when I had to get reimmunized or stuff I KNEW I had been vaccinated against - the records just weren't accessable - I was PO'd even though I knew the rational behind all of it!!!! And I fought it tooth and nail - kind of "I fought the law and the law won" senario - I got the shot.

 

[pedinurse]

Receiving a blood transfusion involves risk. IMO, this ban is akin to them making you take your shoes off at the airport. Big show to make folks feel safe, when in reality, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Yes, there are risks. That is why you have to go through all that consent giving when receiving blood. However - THIS issue is about decreasing that risk. Anything we can do to decrease that risk - including excluding people who are at a higher risk for HIV than the general population - is all about decreasing the general population to exposure to HIV.

Bottom line - because of the "mechanics" of it, male to male sex has a higher incidence of disease transmission than male / female intercourse. Period. Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It just is a fact.

If we excluded everyone who had sex at all we wouldn't have a blood supply, people! So we can't limit everyone who is sexually active (sex is a risk factor for HIV). So we have to limit those who donate who engage in sexually "risky" (for disease transmission) behaviors.

 

[IrishMist]

Yes, there are risks. That is why you have to go through all that consent giving when receiving blood. However - THIS issue is about decreasing that risk. Anything we can do to decrease that risk - including excluding people who are at a higher risk for HIV than the general population - is all about decreasing the general population to exposure to HIV.

Bottom line - because of the "mechanics" of it, male to male sex has a higher incidence of disease transmission than male / female intercourse. Period. Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It just is a fact.

If we excluded everyone who had sex at all we wouldn't have a blood supply, people! So we can't limit everyone who is sexually active (sex is a risk factor for HIV). So we have to limit those who donate who engage in sexually "risky" (for disease transmission) behaviors.

I see the point you are trying to make. However, based on my own life experiences, I'd have to say this:

I have 3 gay couples that I know and consider friends. (As opposed to buddies) All are in long term (25+ years) committed relationships. The Mister's uncle, also gay, was in a committed long term relationship.

My brother's brother, gay, long term relationship.

My ex-husband, secretly gay, committing all sorts of unsafe acts. The men that he committed those acts with? Most times also married, always a stranger.

My dad. Divorced six times. Many relationships on the side.

My buddy Bob. Can't keep his wiener in his pants if ya paid him.

My other buddy Bob. Don't remember the last time he wasn't cheating on his wife.

My ex co-worker Charlie. Dedicated single man/. Said he was too old to catch AIDS, and wasn't worried about it.

Two of my girlfriends seeing married men-- yup, they ride bareback.

I could go on.

Out of all these people, can ya guess whose blood I'd want running through MY veins.

The answer is to improve testing.

 

[Nova]

Yes, there are risks. That is why you have to go through all that consent giving when receiving blood. However - THIS issue is about decreasing that risk. Anything we can do to decrease that risk - including excluding people who are at a higher risk for HIV than the general population - is all about decreasing the general population to exposure to HIV.

Bottom line - because of the "mechanics" of it, male to male sex has a higher incidence of disease transmission than male / female intercourse. Period. Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It just is a fact.

If we excluded everyone who had sex at all we wouldn't have a blood supply, people! So we can't limit everyone who is sexually active (sex is a risk factor for HIV). So we have to limit those who donate who engage in sexually "risky" (for disease transmission) behaviors.

While I agree with your premise that we must do what is necessary to keep the blood supply safe, your very post shows how insuring that safety often comes down to semantics (not a very reliable scientific standard).

It is NOT true that the "mechanics" of male to male sex, per se, has a higher incidence of disease transmission than male/female intercourse, and you must know better. (You're probably just a more polite person than I and didn't want to get too graphic.)

Anal sex may have a higher risk, but only if one of the partners is infected in the first place. Male HIV-/Male HIV- anal sex has ZERO chance of transmission; Male HIV+/Female HIV- vaginal sex has a relatively high chance of transmission.

In the second place, not all gay men engage in anal sex. Some restrict their activities to oral sex, which has a lower risk of disease transmission than vaginal intercourse. Some restrict themselves entirely to activities that do not involve the exchange of fluids.

Which brings us to heterosexuals, a significant percentage of whom DO engage in anal sex, owing to preference or as a method of birth control.

Nobody here is saying we should endanger the blood supply just to avoid offending someone. What some of us are questioning is whether, considering that the entire system depends on voluntary responses, the right questions are being asked of potential donors.

 

[pedinurse]

I see the point you are trying to make. However, based on my own life experiences, I'd have to say this:

I have 3 gay couples that I know and consider friends. (As opposed to buddies) All are in long term (25+ years) committed relationships. The Mister's uncle, also gay, was in a committed long term relationship.

My brother's brother, gay, long term relationship.

My ex-husband, secretly gay, committing all sorts of unsafe acts. The men that he committed those acts with? Most times also married, always a stranger.

My dad. Divorced six times. Many relationships on the side.

My buddy Bob. Can't keep his wiener in his pants if ya paid him.

My other buddy Bob. Don't remember the last time he wasn't cheating on his wife.

My ex co-worker Charlie. Dedicated single man/. Said he was too old to catch AIDS, and wasn't worried about it.

Two of my girlfriends seeing married men-- yup, they ride bareback.

I could go on.

Out of all these people, can ya guess whose blood I'd want running through MY veins.

The answer is to improve testing.

This is very true. We do need to change the questions we're asking. This may be off topic, but have any of you gone on craigslist? OMG - it is all anonymous sex! Well, not all but a lot of it! I think one of the screening questions the red cross uses should be "have you ever met a partner through craigslist". Men and women use that site. It is scary! In the end, yes, I would much rather have the couple that I KNOW is HIV negative and monogomous donate than a heterosexual individual who has risky behaviors - but unfortunetly, the time won't be taken to ensure we have good donors. :-(

 

[pedinurse]

While I agree with your premise that we must do what is necessary to keep the blood supply safe, your very post shows how insuring that safety often comes down to semantics (not a very reliable scientific standard).

It is NOT true that the "mechanics" of male to male sex, per se, has a higher incidence of disease transmission than male/female intercourse, and you must know better. (You're probably just a more polite person than I and didn't want to get too graphic.)

Anal sex may have a higher risk, but only if one of the partners is infected in the first place. Male HIV-/Male HIV- anal sex has ZERO chance of transmission; Male HIV+/Female HIV- vaginal sex has a relatively high chance of transmission.

In the second place, not all gay men engage in anal sex. Some restrict their activities to oral sex, which has a lower risk of disease transmission than vaginal intercourse. Some restrict themselves entirely to activities that do not involve the exchange of fluids.

Which brings us to heterosexuals, a significant percentage of whom DO engage in anal sex, owing to preference or as a method of birth control.

Nobody here is saying we should endanger the blood supply just to avoid offending someone. What some of us are questioning is whether, considering that the entire system depends on voluntary responses, the right questions are being asked of potential donors.

Yeah, you knew what I was getting at! You're right, we need to change the questions we are asking.

 

[Nova]

Yeah, you knew what I was getting at! You're right, we need to change the questions we are asking.

I was certain you had to know the difference and were just sparing the feelings of posters who don't want too much info.

Alas, I haven't your sense of decorum. :crazy:

The only reason I think homophobic bias here is at all an issue (and it isn't an issue I'm going to get upset about) is the lumping of all gay men together in one big prohibition. Sounds suspiciously like the ol' "Anti-Gay Agenda." But as long as we have enough blood, it doesn't really matter.

 

[txsvicki]

I am shocked that someone mentioned that anal sex doesn't carry a higher risk of transmitting disease. Vaginal sex does not normally result in any tearing or blood and anal sex can and does because of the large amount of blood vessels in the area. I think doctors would agree with this. There's no way that most heterosexual couples engage in anal sex because there would be more women with HIV by now due to this risky behavior and the fact that many people do cheat, divorce, and change partners who have had other partners.

 

[Autumn2004]

I am shocked that someone mentioned that anal sex doesn't carry a higher risk of transmitting disease. Vaginal sex does not normally result in any tearing or blood and anal sex can and does because of the large amount of blood vessels in the area. I think doctors would agree with this. There's no way that most heterosexual couples engage in anal sex because there would be more women with HIV by now due to this risky behavior and the fact that many people do cheat, divorce, and change partners who have had other partners.

Your right tearing and blood do increase risk but there was a study done not too long ago regarding anal intercourse and its the latest thing among some teens. I think it was on dr drew's show but Im not sure if I heard it from there. They consider themselves virgins still, its the same way with oral sex. I wont get into the subject of what intercourse is though . It is done more frequently now than ever before or at least its reported more. Couples have used it as birth control or being able to have sex during period times.

 

[txsvicki]

Your right tearing and blood do increase risk but there was a study done not too long ago regarding anal intercourse and its the latest thing among some teens. I think it was on dr drew's show but Im not sure if I heard it from there. They consider themselves virgins still, its the same way with oral sex. I wont get into the subject of what intercourse is though . It is done more frequently now than ever before or at least its reported more. Couples have used it as birth control or being able to have sex during period times.

I had never heard that teens are doing the latest thing and suprised that young girls would allow it more than once. Well, I guess that it is mainly for the male teen and partner because the enjoyment couldn't be mutual in that one way for a female and I have to wonder if they are interfering with other enjoyment when older. I have some opinions about the birth control being the real reason, but I better keep my mouth shut.

 

[Autumn2004]

Personally, I wouldn't want that done to me. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. He did make the comments on there about how it would be difficult to treat std's in the rectum, such as cancer of the anus and lower rectum due to hpv, and he felt there might be repercussions in making permanent problems in some of the population. I'm assuming leaky bowel is what he meant.