Sign in or 
Location: Event Ideas
Discussion: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
Meg.Sneed |
Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 14 2009, 10:42 AM EST
The FDA currently has a policy that states “Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 are currently deferred as blood donors.” This means that a male who has had sex with another male even one time since 1977 is banned for life from donating blood. This policy was written in 1983, Twenty-five years later this policy is not only medically and scientifically unwarranted, it is also discriminatory.The American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), America’s Blood Centers (ABC) and the American Red Cross (ARC) have stated that the lifetime ban for men who have sex with men "is medically and scientifically unwarranted" and that "it does not appear rational to broadly differentiate sexual transmission via male-to-male sexual activity from that via heterosexual activity on scientific grounds”. A gay man who has consistently tested negative for HIV and who has had only one protected sexual encounter with another man can never donate blood. However, a heterosexual man who has engaged in high-risk sexual activity (visited prostitutes) or has had intercourse with an HIV positive individual is only banned/ deferred for 1 year. On February 21st 2009 in Phoenix, Arizona upward of 100 otherwise eligible healthy blood donors, HIV-, Hepatitis B- and Hepatitis C- men will ask to give blood and save up to three lives each. Based on the current policy they will be denied the ability to donate. A second blood drive will take place in cities across the nation 91 days from the first blood drive, on May 23rd 2009. On May 23rd 2009 thousands of lives can be saved across the country. Through dialog and the sharing of scientific data in collaboration with American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), America’s Blood Centers (ABC) and the American Red Cross (ARC), we will be able to work with the FDA to create a new policy may be put into place that is not discriminatory against a group of people. 108 out of 112 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
Blood Bank Discrimination
gay blood donor discriminate
|
kims2 |
1. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 14 2009, 1:56 PM EST
One question I do have. I do not have the disease, neither am I male. I have never given blood before. But do they have it written into law that everyone, rather heterosexual or homosexual should be tested before donating blood. Instead of discriminating against a gay man, when heterosexuals can have these diseases too, can it be possible to get rid of the law you said is in place and yet make sure everyone is tested before they go to donate the blood? Going through the process of everyone who donates blood could take longer, but it would not discriminate against others who are actually healthy individuals even though they are gay, etc. So could it be possible to get rid of this law, but ask that every single person be tested that goes to donate blood, before they would be declined to do so?
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
jaysays |
2. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 14 2009, 3:12 PM EST
Well... overturning it would mean I'd have to come up with another excuse not to donate blood - least I be forced to admit I'm terrified of it.I have this vague recollection of a Supreme Court case on this issue which upheld the rule. Does anyone have a reference? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
glitterytara |
3. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 17 2009, 5:07 PM EST
I love this idea, it is time for us to change this policy.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
MarriageEqualityUSaz |
4. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 17 2009, 9:05 PM EST
I think that this is a great idea for a nationwide action, and am looking forward to the February version of this action in Arizona.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Spring_Haze |
5. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 17 2009, 11:24 PM EST
"One question I do have. I do not have the disease, neither am I male. I have never given blood before. But do they have it written into law that everyone, rather heterosexual or homosexual should be tested before donating blood. Instead of discriminating against a gay man, when heterosexuals can have these diseases too, can it be possible to get rid of the law you said is in place and yet make sure everyone is tested before they go to donate the blood? Going through the process of everyone who donates blood could take longer, but it would not discriminate against others who are actually healthy individuals even though they are gay, etc. So could it be possible to get rid of this law, but ask that every single person be tested that goes to donate blood, before they would be declined to do so?"Everyone is tested, but gay man can't give blood either way Do you find this valuable? |
|
MomRocks! |
6. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 18 2009, 1:59 AM EST
It is about time!
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
jeynu1 |
7. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 18 2009, 4:04 AM EST
I am behind this 100%. I would love to be able to publicize the number of people who were turned away from donating life-saving blood simply because of their sexual orientation. This has been a particularly disturbing law in my personal opinion. I love this idea!
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
kims2 |
8. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 18 2009, 6:22 PM EST
"Everyone is tested, but gay man can't give blood either way"Now that is most definately discrimination. Why this bill is still around is obviously proof of peoples ignorance. 1 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
pngwnz |
9. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 18 2009, 10:42 PM EST
I decided to venture to the FDA website. Before I found information about the regulation itself I found the guidelines for protecting and testing donated blood. There are many steps and many key personnel involved long after the blood has been taken at the donation site. The document also said that every single blood donation is quarantined and tested for the following: HIV; HBC; HCV; HTLV; WNV; T. Cruzi and Syphilis. (no I did not look up the ones I don't know.) I also found a document listed as a docket (as in court??). Some might find this very interesting - from a college. The pamphlet from the blood drive (with those horrible guidelines) and pages of signatures that this be changed !http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04d0192/04d-0192-c000003-01-vol1.pdf I also want to add something of a personal nature from the other end of things. (I am female, a lesbian and do not have hiv). Dec '07 I was hospitalized. During the hospitalization I needed several units of blood. I had already told the hospital staff that I am a lesbian -the first night. Receiving blood is like a military operation. It involved my nurse, the nurse bringing the blood and my arm with the id wristband. Each piece of information was said by one and repeated by another, then verified by reading from my wristband. Took awhile. After the bag was hung and before it was started I was asked to sign a waiver - that the blood was tested for HIV but was not absolutely guaranteed. I agreed, I believed the blood to be okay, after all regardless of who donated the blood was tested for many things. There are so many possibilities of illnesses/diseases which prevent people from donating. I, myself cannot donate. Yet they rule out an entire segment of the population who truly want to help. By the way- on the bottom of each "bag" of blood are little tiny sample things of blood - to retest the sample at any time. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
pngwnz |
10. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 18 2009, 10:51 PM EST
What I meant to say - before my mind started running so much faster than my fingers.....I agreed to receive the blood knowing that the blood was tested and I trusted their testing methods. I trusted that those who already had diseases which could be transmitted via a blood transfusion were already ruled out as donors and/or omitted as a blood sample after donation. A person is not a disease, but a person can have a disease. I like what's going to happen at that blood drive next month. I was in the hospital for 23 days thinking that everybody who wants to donate should be able to unless a specific medical condition or disease is an issue. I was so ill then and there were so many other people who were very ill, I just couldn't understand ( and still don't understand) why a man who has sex with another man after 1977 cannot donate. As long as disease isn't present when the sample is tested in the lab - why rule out the lifesaving blood. To all who have read both of my posts - thanks for taking the time to read... 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
atmasilver |
11. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 19 2009, 3:23 AM EST
The problem with testing is that it's only 99% accurate. HIV doesn't always test positive until 6 months after infection, for example.I don't want to advocate anything that would put lives at risk, but I think it's a very stupid rule. I don't respect it much. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
pngwnz |
12. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 19 2009, 11:09 PM EST
"The problem with testing is that it's only 99% accurate. HIV doesn't always test positive until 6 months after infection, for example.I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Which testing are you referring to ? Possibly you might want to look up just how blood is handled by looking at the FDA website. One place to begin is:http://www.fda.gov/cber/blood.htm 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
atmasilver |
13. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 22 2009, 8:19 PM EST
I remember a statistic that the blood testing done when you donate blood only detects HIV 99% of the time; 1% of HIV positive blood will be missed. Therefore you should NEVER donate blood to find out your HIV status. I am also pointing out that a person will not always test positive for an HIV infection until several months after infection. I am not interested in the FDA website.
1
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
melissahalverson |
14. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 28 2009, 4:07 PM EST
Thank you all for your questions and comments and interest. Please continue to tell others and please post any questions you might have about the policy, FDA, CDC or anything else. Thank you so much!
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
Judegeekgirl |
15. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 28 2009, 8:51 PM EST
Atmasilver is correct. The test detects HIV 99% of the time. Also, it can take up to six months for an infected person to test positive, although it is usually 6 to 12 weeks. As a scientist who works some with diagnostic companies, I have a tiny amount of knowledge about the FDA. They consider things slowly. And with HIV on the rise among young gay men, I think you are in for a tough sell. Especially with the stories that make the news that some young gay men actually try to pass along the illness. The gay community was well educated about HIV after the horrors of the 80s but something has gone wrong with reaching younger gay men.It's a risk when you get blood from ANYONE. I know there are plenty of gay men who are not infected and that this rule is unfair. I just think the progress will be slow. If someone developed a test that would detect virus within days of transmission, that would be great. I find it curious that this topic received the most votes. Is this really the most important battle in gay rights? In 30 states you can be fired for being gay. In this economy, doesn't that worry you? Couples and families need the legal and financial protections of marriage. I'd like to see bullying of LGBT youth stamped out. And hate crime laws passed. These all seem more important to me. I'm in favor of the idea. Don't get me wrong. It's just not the battle I would choose first. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
atmasilver |
16. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 28 2009, 11:19 PM EST
"I find it curious that this topic received the most votes. Is this really the most important battle in gay rights? In 30 states you can be fired for being gay. In this economy, doesn't that worry you? Couples and families need the legal and financial protections of marriage. I'd like to see bullying of LGBT youth stamped out. And hate crime laws passed. These all seem more important to me.Well with respect, I am not in favor of this idea. I think it's a good aspiration that's extremelly unimportant and low priority. There are several mitigating factors suggesting it is a just policy and these factors must be circumvented carefully. Also, there's the small matter of it being rather ridiculous to claim it is unjust discrimination when you're not even being denied any kind of benefit or boon, in marked contrast to just about every single other cause that's ever gotten the civil rights or anti-discrimination label. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
pngwnz |
17. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 29 2009, 2:56 AM EST
Everybody please don't forget one very important aspect of overturning the fda policy. No matter who donates the blood, no matter whether or not the testing process (of the blood after donation) is effective - it's about saving a life. It was for me. The choice was take the blood which has been tested (and yes something could have been missed), or not be here today to write this post. Without question I very much wanted (and still do want) to live !!!!!!!!! If the needed blood is not available - some blood types are not readily available - then there is no choice for the extremely ill patient. Yes I took a chance realizing that some diseases could escape detection - hiv, hepatitis, etc - and I am still glad that I did. My body needed the blood to live. I'm also very trusting that most donors are aware as possible of their health status and use decent judgement before volunteering to donate. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Judegeekgirl |
18. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 29 2009, 8:03 AM EST
Believe me, I do realize it is about saving a life. So does the FDA. Their mission, and only mission, is protecting public health and safety. People who have lived in Britain recently cannot donate blood due to Mad Cow Disease. The FDA will is risk averse, sometimes illogical and will need lots of scientific data to be convinced. I just know how they work. I agree that most donors would be honest. I'm skeptical that all donors would be honest. Whenever possible, if you know that you are in a situation where you will need blood, donate your own blood ahead of time.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
dpomeroy |
19. RE: Overturn FDA Policy Banning Gay & Bisexual Men From Blood Donation
Jan 30 2009, 1:44 PM EST
I wholeheartedly agree. I remember giving blood for the first time in high school and finding out that, as a gay man, once I had sex for the first time I would not be able to give again, and I remember how hurtful and angry it made me. However, I do think there are far more devastating forms of discrimination out there. I would bet the reason this has been voted up so much though is that JTI is a younger crowd and for younger people the idea of job security and the rights of marriage are a bit too far down the road to arouse a lot of emotion. In any case I think if take a step back and look at what's really at stake people should be able to agree that ENDA and marriage are far more consequential. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
