FDA Considers Ending Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood

defiance0 · May 29, 2010

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preparing to end the decades-old ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. In a development long advocated by AIDS activists, a key committee will meet next month to discuss ways to implement opening up blood donation. For the first time in nearly three decades, gay men may finally be able to participate in this basic act of charity: donating blood.

In 1983, the FDA responded to the AIDS crisis by banning blood donations by any man who had since 1977 had sex, whether oral or anal, with another man. And since 1983, that rule, called the "MSM deferral," has not changed. A single instance of gay sex is disqualifying—and the disqualifying year is still 1977. Had sex with a man one time in 1978, been celibate and tested yearly since? Too bad for you, friend. Your blood is not wanted—despite the fact that donated blood is always tested for HIV (and other pathogens) anyway, and despite the fact that men can have unlimited unprotected sex, including anal, with women without being a priori excluded.

Now all that seems poised to change. The MSM deferral isn't a law, contrary to popular belief; it's a guidance, that is, an instruction to a government agency on how to carry out its mission, laws and regulations. In this case, the FDA appears ready to discuss altering that guidance to something more humane and modern. A notice published in the Federal Register Thursday establishes a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability to be held June 10 and 11 in Rockville, Md. It is open to the public, and public comment will be invited on the second day, should any of our more vocal readers like to attend. At the meeting, the committee will discuss the following issues:

What are the most important factors (e.g. societal, scientific, and economic) to consider in making a policy change; is the currently available scientific information including risk assessments sufficient to support a policy change at this time?
What studies, if any, are needed before implementing a policy change?
What monitoring tools or surveillance activities would need to be in place before implementing a policy change?
What additional safety measures, if any, are needed to assure blood safety under a revised deferral policy?

In other words, the committee will consider the status of modern screening techniques, both scientific and verbal—and activists and sensible people everywhere are hoping that they will at the very least revisit and seriously revise the ridiculous

prinz4ming · May 29, 2010

Its one of the simplest and most valuable things you can do to help a fellow human being. Ive given blood well over a dozen times and Ive never felt dizzy or light headed, and I like to imagine at least a few people's lives have been saved because of that

Its ridiculous isnt it that a gay man (even if in a monogamous relationship) is not accepted while a hetero man-whore is...

LuiM · Jun 4, 2010

Well one thing is discrimination, the other thing are facts. In my country still 90% of those who have AIDS are gay. I believe I as gay definitely have a right not to be discriminated when it comes to my human rights.

But I don't look at donating blood as a human right. Maybe receiving blood is. If I was the one who would have to receive blood I would not want to receive it from another gay man, because I know we belong to a riskier group of people regarding our gay life style. And we all know aids cannot be discovered in first weeks since someone gets it.

This is not about discrimination of us gays - it's simply about protection.

prinz4ming said:
Its ridiculous isnt it that a gay man (even if in a monogamous relationship) is not accepted while a hetero man-whore is...

It's true what you're saying. But as a potential receiver of blood I have to say I would be very grateful to hospitals who would try to eliminate as many risk factors as possible when providing me blood. I mean wouldn't you?

It can't be good when politics (gay lobbies this time or christian lobbies at other occasions) is interfering with science. Leave medicine to doctors.

prinz4ming · Jun 4, 2010

Louie... I AM a doctor, and thats why Im sayin it... True, the first 6 weeks may not be accurate in determining a person's HIV status. But that is true for anyone gay or str8, whether u got it by sex, blood transfusions or a needle stick injury.

Blood before transfusion is screened for HIV, Hepatitis and various other infective agents. It may be true that 90% of HIV pos people in ur country are gay (where is this btw??) But what percentage of gay people are HIV positive? Its denying a vast majority of people the chance to do a charitable act. (and here at least you can be sure its gonna go to a deserving person and not to line the pockets of some manager type person)

ritsuka · Jun 5, 2010

I'm sure those are not real statistics. In any case, we're talking about the US, and no, gay/bisexual males should not be discriminated against; everyone should be tested for std's, and that is it. Should someone die because a potential donor for a rare blood type doesn't have sex with women? No. Should gay parents be barred from donating blood to their kids? No.

Fiddy · Jun 5, 2010

Y'know, regardless of whatever skewed reasoning goes into it, first and foremost it always seemed needlessly wasteful to flat out say "no" to the homosexual deviations of the world. Untapped resources and all that. So this is all for the good. If anything comes of it, anyway.

LuiM · Jun 7, 2010

I'm gay and I know other gays and I know what their lifestyle is. I had sex with about ten men in my life. The last one had AIDS. I didn't know it. He didn't tell me. I found out about that a few months later. Since I found out he had AIDS and until I got the results of my blood test back (7 days) I was going through a living nightmare. Fortunately I came out clean but since that time I haven't had sex for at least two years now. And I'm 34.

Please understand that medicine has nothing to do with any rights. If I ever needed a transfusion I'd only be interested in getting clean blood. With all the risk factors eliminated. Gays do live riskier than others. And donating blood can't be any right. It's a humanitarian gesture. That's all. And if someone is not allowed to donate blood, well isn't that just a safety precaution? I mean medicine is not interested in political correctness is it? Well it shouldn't be.

Again: donating blood - in my strong belief - is not a human right. It's just health-care's need. And nobody is denied any right if he must not donate blood.

I'm not being against myself as gay here. I'm being pro myself as a healthy human being. I believe nobody is against nor pro anyone when it comes to donating blood.

ritsuka · Jun 8, 2010

Personal experiences or prejudices are not statistical data, and only come from assumptions about the circles you personally engage in in the small part of the world where you live. Medical care is recognized as a human right, and should be delivered without undue discrimination and judgments about someone else's "lifestyle" (when sexuality, just like race or ethnicity, doesn't prescribe anything) when the blood itself can be tested and that data used. But if you'll only accept straight blood, than don't come to the US after this law is enacted.

Interesting data: http://www.hivinfosource.org/hivis/hivbasics/demographics/

73% of hiv/aids patients in the US are male, 50% are African American. Should only white women, therefore, be allowed to give blood, or should the actual cases of disease be singled out, not any one community or other?

LuiM · Jun 8, 2010

ritsuka said:
Personal experiences or prejudices are not statistical data, and only come from assumptions about the circles you personally engage in in the small part of the world where you live.

Well in the near past I pretty much lived in circles similar to those depicted in QAF, which we have to admit pretty much reflects nowadays gay life.

I'd only like to add that I don't belong to any gay or other political group to know the proper answer to your question. Because this is purely ideological issue, which it shouldn't be. I agree with you - there's no place for prejudices here - only for facts and reason. As far as me goes I just follow common sense believing medical experts do care for all people (gay or straight). And if they say no, they have (medical!, not emotional) reasons for it.

Of course there are other risk factors. But that doesn't justify the suspension of current ones. On the contrary. All risk factors should be taken into account. And they actually are. At least where I live (EU) str8 people who change their partners often are not allowed to donate blood either. And so far nobody ever came to an idea they're discriminated. Instead of that we all have a quality health care.

FDA Considers Ending Ban on Gay Men Donating Blood

defiance0

Super Vip

prinz4ming

V.I.P Member

LuiM

Guest

prinz4ming

V.I.P Member

ritsuka

V.I.P Member

Fiddy

Member

LuiM

Guest

ritsuka

V.I.P Member

LuiM

Guest

Similar threads