I can't donate blood. Neither can you, probably. CRY about it / LAUGH about it.

[Dave]

You'll laugh, I think - when you see what Saatchi + Saatchi created, pro bono, with Alan Cumming*, to show how ass-backwards the FDA's blood donor policy is:

 

http://celibacychallenge.com/

 

After viewing it, you can sign the change.org petition to pressure the FDA to screen ALL prospective blood donors "based on risk, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

 

Happy viewing...

 

 

*A rare creature - an Openly Bisexual Male!

[Daverwr]

Thanks, Dave.

 

I remember when a news teaser said the FDA was changing their rules for blood donation by gay and bisexual men. I was so excited and sat waiting for the news with baited breath! How disappointed was I to learn of their new cockamamie rule - more stupid than the first one!?!

[+ Gar1eth]

Thanks, Dave.

 

I remember when a news teaser said the FDA was changing their rules for blood donation by gay and bisexual men. I was so excited and sat waiting for the news with baited breath! How disappointed was I to learn of their new cockamamie rule - more stupid than the first one!?!

 

 

What is the new rule?

 

Gman

[Daverwr]

What is the new rule?

 

Gman

 

Gay and bisexual men can now donate blood provided they have not had sex with another man in the past 365 days!

[+ quoththeraven]

The irrationally discriminatory nature of this policy was also discussed in this thread shortly after it was first proposed. It's particularly stupid considering blood donations are tested anyway, so the risk involved has everything to do with the gap period between infection and positive test results, which is way less than a year. If they're using the most sophisticated tests, I believe the gap period is 14 days. (Someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, it's still no longer than a month.)

 

On the other hand, men who engage in anal intercourse with other men (MSM) are at higher risk than men who only engage in sex with women or who don't engage in anal sex with other men, especially if they bottom. They're at more risk than drug users who share needles or those who are exposed via needlestick. See CDC estimates here: http://www.thebody.com/content/68450/hiv-transmission-risk-chart.html (As the chart explains, there are some caveats to that in both directions which most likely mean that those estimates are overstated with regard to exposures when the other person knows they're HIV positive and understated with regard to those who don't.) Also, versatility facilitates transmission, which may be as big a factor (or maybe even a bigger one) in the transmission of HIV among MSM as the risks associated with anal intercourse itself.

 

As a result, I'm not opposed to different guidelines for MSM than for others as long as the differences are the least necessary to achieve the same level of risk. For example, instituting a waiting period equal to the testing gap period or receiving assurances that risk-minimizing practices such as condoms or PrEP were used during that period. Yes, donors can lie, but I'd hope that if the guidelines are reasonable, anyone altruistic enough to donate blood wouldn't lie or bend the rules in order to donate. What would not be a good outcome is HIV transmission via a donor who became positive recently enough that the test couldn't detect it. That's what the FDA wants to protect against. This policy goes a lot further than is necessary to do that.

[+ Gar1eth]

Gay and bisexual men can now donate blood provided they have not had sex with another man in the past 365 days!

 

I guess it's time to break out the wall calendar and my red marks-a-lot.

 

Gman

[gallahadesquire]

Random comment, the type I'm best at:

 

i was an avid blood donor for years. i was also in the last Harvard study for the Hepatitis B vaccine ... HUMAN derived, no less.

It was a bitch trying to tell the donor room that i was going to be HepB Antibody (+) but antigen (-).

 

Now, after receiving seven (7) units of blood in 2010, and doing some liver transplants at 50+ units of blood / case,

I think I'm kind of a living cess pool, and don't even try.

[Frequentflier]

this thread[/url] shortly after it was first proposed. It's particularly stupid considering blood donations are tested anyway, so the risk involved has everything to do with the gap period between infection and positive test results, which is way less than a year. If they're using the most sophisticated tests, I believe the gap period is 14 days. (Someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, it's still no longer than a month.)

 

On the other hand, men who engage in anal intercourse with other men (MSM) are at higher risk than men who only engage in sex with women or who don't engage in anal sex with other men, especially if they bottom. They're at more risk than drug users who share needles or those who are exposed via needlestick. See CDC estimates here: http://www.thebody.com/content/68450/hiv-transmission-risk-chart.html (As the chart explains, there are some caveats to that in both directions which most likely mean that those estimates are overstated with regard to exposures when the other person knows they're HIV positive and understated with regard to those who don't.) Also, versatility facilitates transmission, which may be as big a factor (or maybe even a bigger one) in the transmission of HIV among MSM as the risks associated with anal intercourse itself.

 

As a result, I'm not opposed to different guidelines for MSM than for others as long as the differences are the least necessary to achieve the same level of risk. For example, instituting a waiting period equal to the testing gap period or receiving assurances that risk-minimizing practices such as condoms or PrEP were used during that period. Yes, donors can lie, but I'd hope that if the guidelines are reasonable, anyone altruistic enough to donate blood wouldn't lie or bend the rules in order to donate. What would not be a good outcome is HIV transmission via a donor who became positive recently enough that the test couldn't detect it. That's what the FDA wants to protect against. This policy goes a lot further than is necessary to do that.

 

Are heterosexual men and women asked if they have engaged in anal sex within the last year? Or unprotected oral activities?

 

I'm more impressed that donated blood is tested than the answers to any questions provided by straight or gay people. Appropriate questions should be asked, in case people answer them truthfully, but I'd wonder about recent prior activities and current health status of everyone and not moreso of gays.