went to give blood today at american red cross and turned down because i was gay

[Gymowner]

i went today to give blood today at the american red cross. they have multiple questions about having sex with men, aids etc. on a questionnaire. On the question "did you have sex with a man in the past" i was able to answer as a "defer". After i answered the questionnaire the nurse came in and reviewed the questions. Well she went to the question and asked me "have you had sex in the past 12 months with another male". I asked her why it was important to know this. She said "its because you may be putting other peoples lives at risk". I answered with an honest answer.

 

She then finished up with the questionnaire, tested my blood for my iron count then proceeded to tell me that it is an F.D.A. mandate that any male having sex with another male has to wait 12 months from the LAST date of sex to be able to donate blood. Hence no gay answering honestly will be able to give blood.

 

WOW!!!! With rapid testing and knowing results in a few seconds now this is unbelievable! How easy it would be to ask the question, get a yes then proceed to do a rapid test on the person. I wouldnt have minded at all. Yet to have to get up and walk out wanting to do a good deed really is amazing. Total discrimination at play here!

 

So i guess now that the government views this as a totally homosexually related virus. If i answered "no" i would have been able to give blood. I am sure women are not asked the same question and turned away.

 

From my understanding this is a long ongoing FDA mandate...so dont bash Trump on this one. The ACLU should have a field day with this!!!!

[+ poolboy48220]

It's an improvement from the ban which started in the late 80's or early 90's which said you couldn't give blood if you'd ever had sex with a man. This new less restrictive policy dates from the last 5 years or so.

 

But still silly. I was a four-gallon donor at 30, but haven't given since then. Celibate for a year? Nah.

[topinla]

It’s the Red Cross’ loss, not yours.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

This has been SOP for a long, long time.

 

You can either lie to them or you can forgo blood donation.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Amazing. I thought that was a problem from the 90s.

[Guy Fawkes]

The weird aspect of the policy is that they test the blood for HIV anyway among other things: https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html

 

Can you say homophobia?

[+ José Soplanucas]

The weird aspect of the policy is that they test the blood for HIV anyway among other things: https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html

 

Can you say homophobia?

[+ nycman]

Sorry, I disagree.

 

It’s not homophobia....it’s medical science.

 

Men who have sex with men are at high risk of contracting HIV.

Maybe we’re not as high risk as we used to be....but we’re still high risk.

 

I think the 1 year moratorium may be excessive time wise, but it’s not insane.

We’re talking about transfusing people with infected blood.....you want to be

hated?....infect a bunch of children with an STD.....the backlash won’t be kind.

 

I’m the first to call out homophobia when I see it....this isn’t it.

[+ WilliamM]

I was told years ago I could not donate blood because of once having cancer.

[LookingAround]

This has been SOP for a long, long time.

 

You can either lie to them or you can forgo blood donation.

Exactly. I’m thinking “you think this is news?” Haha.

[Guy Fawkes]

Perhaps you should read the article and find out what they test for. We'll have to just agree to disagree.

 

Sorry, I disagree.

 

It’s not homophobia....it’s medical science.

 

Men who have sex with men are at high risk of contracting HIV.

Maybe we’re not as high risk as we used to be....but we’re still high risk.

 

I think the 1 year moratorium may be excessive time wise, but it’s not insane.

We’re talking about transfusing people with infected blood.....you want to be

hated?....infect a bunch of children with an STD.....the backlash won’t be kind.

 

I’m the first to call out homophobia when I see it....this isn’t it.

[+ sniper]

Well is the test they use on donated blood the same one they give people in regular screening? It's possible they use a slightly less accurate test on donated blood because it's cheaper...

[+ Funguy]

I was told years ago I could not donate blood because of once having cancer.

 

Me too. I had cancer 68 years ago, it was removed, never needed radiation or chemo and I was never able to donate blood. Even as a directed donor. As a physician, this makes ZERO sense.

[Guy Fawkes]

Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2) Antibody testing (1985) and NAT (1999)

 

Well is the test they use on donated blood the same one they give people in regular screening? It's possible they use a slightly less accurate test on donated blood because it's cheaper...

[rvwnsd]

Let's see if I understand:

• Advice about having sex with another man: Assume all partners are HIV+ and use a physical barrier when having sex. PrEP and frequent testing is not enough. Don't want to exchange fluids, particularly those that contain blood. Don't even let another man cum inside of a condom when fucking you. Can't be too careful!
  
• Reaction to the 12-month "deferral" period between having sex with another man and donating blood: Homophobic discrimination!
  

Got it.

[Rudynate]

i went today to give blood today at the american red cross. they have multiple questions about having sex with men, aids etc. on a questionnaire. On the question "did you have sex with a man in the past" i was able to answer as a "defer". After i answered the questionnaire the nurse came in and reviewed the questions. Well she went to the question and asked me "have you had sex in the past 12 months with another male". I asked her why it was important to know this. She said "its because you may be putting other peoples lives at risk". I answered with an honest answer.

 

She then finished up with the questionnaire, tested my blood for my iron count then proceeded to tell me that it is an F.D.A. mandate that any male having sex with another male has to wait 12 months from the LAST date of sex to be able to donate blood. Hence no gay answering honestly will be able to give blood.

 

WOW!!!! With rapid testing and knowing results in a few seconds now this is unbelievable! How easy it would be to ask the question, get a yes then proceed to do a rapid test on the person. I wouldnt have minded at all. Yet to have to get up and walk out wanting to do a good deed really is amazing. Total discrimination at play here!

 

So i guess now that the government views this as a totally homosexually related virus. If i answered "no" i would have been able to give blood. I am sure women are not asked the same question and turned away.

 

From my understanding this is a long ongoing FDA mandate...so dont bash Trump on this one. The ACLU should have a field day with this!!!!

 

 

 

The rapid test is an antibody test. The fact that they can detect antibodies in minutes rather than days or weeks doesn't change how long it takes an antibody response to develop. The only test that can detect a recent infection is a viral load.

[sincitymix]

Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2) Antibody testing (1985) and NAT (1999)

Hep C, and SYPH.

[Guest]

The rapid test is an antibody test. The fact that they can detect antibodies in minutes rather than days or weeks doesn't change how long it takes an antibody response to develop. The only test that can detect a recent infection is a viral load.

According to the Red Cross's own website, it's not just the antibody, but the actual virus which is also tested:

https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html

NAT closes the window period between infection and the detection of antibody for those infected with HIV by about 2 weeks. This leaves an approximate period of 7 to 10 days when an infected donor may not be detected by blood donation screening.

NAT stands for nucleic acid testing (or testing for the actual virus). In other words, per the Red Cross's own admission, there is no valid reason for any refusal for anyone who hasn't had sex in the last 2 weeks. And this would apply to donors of any sexual orientation. The notion that only gays get HIV is outdated, untrue, and preposterous. The question should be "Have you had any sexual activity with someone other than your permanent partner in the last 2 weeks?" If the answer is no, there is no reason to refuse the donation. But since they don't want my blood, they just won't have it. Nor my dollars, either. There are other charities which do similar work that don't behave like pricks.

[sincitymix]

According to the Red Cross's own website, it's not just the antibody, but the actual virus which is also tested:

https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html

NAT closes the window period between infection and the detection of antibody for those infected with HIV by about 2 weeks. This leaves an approximate period of 7 to 10 days when an infected donor may not be detected by blood donation screening.

NAT stands for nucleic acid testing (or testing for the actual virus). In other words, per the Red Cross's own admission, there is no valid reason for any refusal for anyone who hasn't had sex in the last 2 weeks. And this would apply to donors of any sexual orientation. The notion that only gays get HIV is outdated, untrue, and preposterous. The question should be "Have you had any sexual activity with someone other than your permanent partner in the last 2 weeks?" If the answer is no, there is no reason to refuse the donation. But since they don't want my blood, they just won't have it. Nor my dollars, either. There are other charities which do similar work that don't behave like pricks.

 

Actually there are a few questions.

Have you had sex with anyone who has tested positive for HIV at any time in there lives?

Are you a male who has had sexual contact with another male anytime within the last 12 months.

(if female) have you had sexual contact with a male who has had sexual contact with another male at anytime withing the last 12 months.

If female, the deferral period is 12 months from the date of the sexual contact or 12 months from the date of the deferral.

If male, you would like to think its 12 months from the date of the last sexual contact, but in reality its a permanent deferral, and depending on the center, you could be placed on the national donor deferral registry.

[sincitymix]

This has been SOP for a long, long time.

 

You can either lie to them or you can forgo blood donation.

a lot of people lie when they answer the questions, we know they are lieing, but we dont call them on it. We dont ask if they are gay or other then whats on the paperwork. If they dont admit to it or tell us, we dont care.

We have to follow FDA regulations. we know its outdated. The blood and plasma is quarantined and tested multiple times.. but follow it we do.

However, we also treat ALL the blood and plasma as if its infected regardless of the patient/donor.

It does come as no surprise when we get test results that indicate someone is xxx or yyy, depending on the geographic location you live, we can pretty much already identify what positive results we will get back the majority of the time.

[+ nycman]

No currently available test is going to be able to detect “recent” infection.

 

What constitutes “recent” is open to debate. And just because a test “can” sometimes

detect infection within one week, doesn’t mean it’s 100% sensitive at the one week mark.

In general, the longer you wait after exposure the more sensitive your test becomes.

I agree 12 months seems excessive.

 

It’s not just about HIV....we’re at high risk for lots of blood borne diseases.

 

Guess what, they don’t accept blood from people living in Lyme endemic areas during the

summer months either....is it ”Northeastern Summer Solstice Phobia? Or just using good

medical epidemiology to protect our blood supply....you decide.

[LoveNDino]

This is why I refuse to give money to The American Red Cross. They can mother-forking eat shirt for all I care.

 

Too harsh?

[Colby G]

I worked for the Red Cross blood services in the 80’s before routine blood testing was hardwired. And before screening for HIV was widely and discreetly available. Men would routinely donate to find out their status which was just nuts but it was the only viable option at a pretty scary time. I remember the first time I asked my doctor to be tested and he and his staff had no idea what to do. Talk about discrimination-I was essentially forced out of the practice. We’ve come a long way.

 

I think a year is excessive but then again I think some other exclusions are as well. I no longer donate blood - well I can’t because of the whole year thing, fortunately. It’d be interesting to see how the for-profit blood centers deal with this.

[+ E.T.Bass]

I stopped donating to the Red Cross years ago when I read how much they pay their executives and also news about questionable spends expensed to the organization. Yes, that was years ago, but I'm a bitch that doesn't forget.

[+ WilliamM]

Me too. I had cancer 68 years ago, it was removed, never needed radiation or chemo and I was never able to donate blood. Even as a directed donor. As a physician, this makes ZERO sense.

 

I agree completely. And to call the American Red Cross homophobic is ok I guess. But, the organization has other faults as well. So do many other large organization. (I am not a fan of the Red Cross for other reasons.)