FDA Adopts New Policy Regarding Blood Donation

[+ quoththeraven]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/12/21/fda-officially-alters-decades-old-ban-on-blood-donations-from-gay-and-bisexual-men/?tid=sm_tw

 

(I think the one-year 'deferral' is ridiculous. It should be a 30-day deferral.)

 

Prior threads: http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/blood-donation.101768/#post-936875

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/i-cant-donate-blood-neither-can-you-probably-cry-about-it-laugh-about-it.103273/#post-949834

[sincitymix]

id like to see them prove someone has had sex with another man within that 12 month span.

[Guest]

Sad will be the day if I can ever donate blood under those guidelines. No sex for a year? I'm not sure life would be worth living... But why is gay sex different from straight sex??

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-75s_G-HffOk/U50qwoVIFDI/AAAAAAAAJVI/591xzBGU6v4/s1600/tears-flow-emoticon.png

[+ quoththeraven]

But why is gay sex different from straight sex??

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-75s_G-HffOk/U50qwoVIFDI/AAAAAAAAJVI/591xzBGU6v4/s1600/tears-flow-emoticon.png

 

Statidtically higher risk from anal sex, both receptive and insertive, than vaginal sex, receptive and insertive, amplified by the effects of versatility? You've linked to the CDC stats in a discussion of PrEP.

 

As I understand it, there is virtual unanimity in the public health world that MSM are at greater risk of transmitting HIV than the population at large. Is that not true?

[+ quoththeraven]

id like to see them prove someone has had sex with another man within that 12 month span.

 

Which may mean this is in effect a complete lifting of the ban.

[sincitymix]

Which may mean this is in effect a complete lifting of the ban.

pretty much. I work at a donation place. With the ban in place, we have gay men come in to donate. we know they are gay (some are really flamboyant) but we cant ask if they are gay. when they mark no they have not had sex with another man since 1977 even one time. we take it as stated. We can only act on information if we witness it. so unless we stalk them to peek into windows for naughty sexy time.. or they mention to us about naughty sexy time with a guy.. what they put down is what we go with.

[Guest]

As I understand it, there is virtual unanimity in the public health world that MSM are at greater risk of transmitting HIV than the population at large. Is that not true?

 

I found only one report of HIV transmission from a blood transfusion since 2002 This report describes the first U.S. case of transfusion-transmitted HIV infection reported to CDC since 2002 (published in 2010):

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5941a3.htm

 

According to this report Initially, the donor declined repeated contacts by MDHSS to be interviewed. In April 2009, he agreed to a brief interview with MDHSS, and an OraQuick rapid HIV test (OraSure Technologies, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania) was performed. This test was reactive and confirmed by a positive Western blot at MDHSS. During his interview, the donor reported he was married but had sex with both men and women outside of his marriage, including just before his June 2008 donation. He indicated that the sex often was anonymous and occurred while he was intoxicated.

So in this case, the reason he was contagious but all of the tests came back negative was because he had sex "just before" the donation. Since we can test for both the virus (which becomes positive within a week) and for antibodies, which almost always become positive within 3 months of the infection, it would seem that if one wanted to be so cautious as to guarantee that the donation was clean, 4 months would be enough. And even then, the bigger problem was that the donor seemed to be an asshole, having unprotected drunken anonymous sex. I would think that straights might be more at risk because they're less likely to think they're at risk, and most straights I come across in my practice don't seem to be afraid of getting HIV. In any case, there are many risks associated with getting a blood transfusion. People die every year from various transfusion reactions such as acute immune hemolytic reaction or transfusion-related acute lung injury. If we want to be worried about the once in a decade or so HIV transmission, OK, ban those who've had unprotected sex recently. But one year for any man who's had sex with another man? Not supported by science.

[+ quoththeraven]

I found only one report of HIV transmission from a blood transfusion since 2002 This report describes the first U.S. case of transfusion-transmitted HIV infection reported to CDC since 2002 (published in 2010):

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5941a3.htm

 

According to this report Initially, the donor declined repeated contacts by MDHSS to be interviewed. In April 2009, he agreed to a brief interview with MDHSS, and an OraQuick rapid HIV test (OraSure Technologies, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania) was performed. This test was reactive and confirmed by a positive Western blot at MDHSS. During his interview, the donor reported he was married but had sex with both men and women outside of his marriage, including just before his June 2008 donation. He indicated that the sex often was anonymous and occurred while he was intoxicated.

So in this case, the reason he was contagious but all of the tests came back negative was because he had sex "just before" the donation. Since we can test for both the virus (which becomes positive within a week) and for antibodies, which almost always become positive within 3 months of the infection, it would seem that if one wanted to be so cautious as to guarantee that the donation was clean, 4 months would be enough. And even then, the bigger problem was that the donor seemed to be an asshole, having unprotected drunken anonymous sex. I would think that straights might be more at risk because they're less likely to think they're at risk, and most straights I come across in my practice don't seem to be afraid of getting HIV. In any case, there are many risks associated with getting a blood transfusion. People die every year from various transfusion reactions such as acute immune hemolytic reaction or transfusion-related acute lung injury. If we want to be worried about the once in a decade or so HIV transmission, OK, ban those who've had unprotected sex recently. But one year for any man who's had sex with another man? Not supported by science.

 

As my initial post states, I agree with you, except I believe a 30-day ban rather than four months should be sufficient.

 

As noted above, in practice this is a complete lifting of the ban as long as one is willing to lie in response to the questions. Personally, I think a system that encourages the less conscientious to donate and penalizes those who are more conscientious is what's really stupid.