I have been with the same man for thirty-five years in a committed relationship, now with two kids in a small town. We got legally married as soon as we had the right to (in Canada, recognized here in New York State). We not only pre-date HIV, we pre-date herpes; we are that old. I used to enjoy giving blood in my youth as a social good, but I haven't done so in over thirty years, thanks to the prohibition. Under this ridiculous current rule, he and I would have to abstain from sex WITH EACH OTHER for a year to donate blood. Sorry, it's not worth it to me: We are not THAT old. Let's hope the rule changes before my veins collapse with age.
7
Blood is vigorously screened for HIV and other infections with PCR which can detect infections at very low levels. However, there is still a remote chance of someone testing negative by this method and transmitting HIV if they have a very early infection (i.e. the eclipse period). So, there still is a role for risk-based screening. Many ways to do risk-based screening. Here's an article on a very rare case of transmission of HIV infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5941a3.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5941a3.htm
15
All donated blood is tested for HIV. I believe the guidelines are in place to reduce cost. That is, why go through the trouble and cost of collecting blood from certain groups whose overall risk is high, on a population level? The economic risk would be having to throw away the blood and all the cost that went with collecting it. Donors are always notified when their blood tests positive for HIV.
This is just an economic decision.
I'm not clear about the National Gay Blood Drive. Why did the mother call to thank him and say now her son had a chance? Was her son gay? Did he need blood? Are people under the impression that gay people can only receive blood from gay donors?
I'm not sure why the author feels so strongly about his "right" to donate blood. I have been denied multiple times because of anemia.
The blood banks are private companies and cost is a consideration. The real shame was in the 80s when the motivation of saving money caused them not to test the blood supply for some time even after the HIV test was available. That was criminal.
This is just an economic decision.
I'm not clear about the National Gay Blood Drive. Why did the mother call to thank him and say now her son had a chance? Was her son gay? Did he need blood? Are people under the impression that gay people can only receive blood from gay donors?
I'm not sure why the author feels so strongly about his "right" to donate blood. I have been denied multiple times because of anemia.
The blood banks are private companies and cost is a consideration. The real shame was in the 80s when the motivation of saving money caused them not to test the blood supply for some time even after the HIV test was available. That was criminal.
29
Good lord, the replies in here are outrageous.
"It's not your right to donate blood!" It's a very nice, thoughtful, and life-saving thing to do if you can, especially considering that there is almost always a chronic shortage of blood available for people whose health and lives depends on it. People who donate blood are good citizens who are literally sharing their LIFE BLOOD to help out complete strangers.
"I don't want gay blood", you say? I think you may change your tune if you need blood or you're going at risk of dying, full stop. Also, trust me, the blood doesn't know it's gay and neither will you when it's going in.
"I've abstained for longer! What are you bragging for?" I extend my sincerest hopes that your period of celibacy ended both happily and voluntarily. It has very little to do with the point of the article, which is that blood donor patient screening practices are sadly outdated.
"People don't always answer honestly!" Indeed, I am a liar who always says I weigh more than I do so I can donate. This is why I always faint and cause trouble when I donate. I know straight friends who lie about what countries they've traveled to so they can donate. We *know* we aren't carrying blood transferable diseases. Presumably Mr. Franzone is responsible, and also knows FOR A FACT he isn't passing on AIDS.
Mr. Franzone, keep on doing what you're doing. The inane responses here has inspired me to donate some money to the National Gay Blood Drive.
"It's not your right to donate blood!" It's a very nice, thoughtful, and life-saving thing to do if you can, especially considering that there is almost always a chronic shortage of blood available for people whose health and lives depends on it. People who donate blood are good citizens who are literally sharing their LIFE BLOOD to help out complete strangers.
"I don't want gay blood", you say? I think you may change your tune if you need blood or you're going at risk of dying, full stop. Also, trust me, the blood doesn't know it's gay and neither will you when it's going in.
"I've abstained for longer! What are you bragging for?" I extend my sincerest hopes that your period of celibacy ended both happily and voluntarily. It has very little to do with the point of the article, which is that blood donor patient screening practices are sadly outdated.
"People don't always answer honestly!" Indeed, I am a liar who always says I weigh more than I do so I can donate. This is why I always faint and cause trouble when I donate. I know straight friends who lie about what countries they've traveled to so they can donate. We *know* we aren't carrying blood transferable diseases. Presumably Mr. Franzone is responsible, and also knows FOR A FACT he isn't passing on AIDS.
Mr. Franzone, keep on doing what you're doing. The inane responses here has inspired me to donate some money to the National Gay Blood Drive.
29
The author avers that he abstained from sex for an entire year, simply to donate one pint of blood. This assertion begs a lot of questions - and none are answered in the article. What sort of "sex" did he abstain? What about hand-jobs? Did he abstain from those as well? And did the author have a healthy and enjoyable sex life before he set this goal? Its possible, that he hasn't had sexual relations for three years - and this is a unique maneuver to obtain attention. I know an awful lot of people that donate blood - but I don't recall anyone publicising it and receiving facebook praise from the mothers of ill children.
19
Donating blood is nice. But to really make your point perhaps you should roll up your sleeve and accept a pint of blood from an un-screened gay man.
It's not homophobia, your "rights" aren't being violated and you're not being marginalized. This is part of the same science and logic people demand be recognized and adhered to in other areas of public discourse.
It's not homophobia, your "rights" aren't being violated and you're not being marginalized. This is part of the same science and logic people demand be recognized and adhered to in other areas of public discourse.
33
I have no idea if the ban is still in effect, but some time ago, I could not give blood because a policy forbade anyone who had lived in Africa from giving blood, regardless of one's HIV status. I have not given blood since, although the ban may have been lifted.
8
The key assertion here says "(H)eterosexuals who have unprotected sex with people who don’t know their status have a higher risk of contracting the virus than a gay man who uses protection with someone who knows his status," which is linked to a government research page.
I see nothing on that page supporting that. It was previously noted this piece contains an incorrect figure for the national HIV prevalence rate.
Not a strong argument when it incorporates fiction to this degree.
I see nothing on that page supporting that. It was previously noted this piece contains an incorrect figure for the national HIV prevalence rate.
Not a strong argument when it incorporates fiction to this degree.
11
No one has the "right" to donate blood. And there is still a time period between contracting HIV-Aids and the ability of the blood test to detect. The current trend of gay men is unprotected sex, and the incidence of HIV in MSM is increasing. The gay community wants to contribute, but I do not agree that this is the way to do so.
22
I have a gay friend who is too young to remember the worst of the AIDS epidemic in the US. He is offended that he can't donate blood if he's had sex in the past year. Every time he complains, I remember all the little boys who died from receiving blood donations. I understand my friend's frustration, but it's not about him, it's about avoiding more tragedies.
Because I'm underweight I also can't donate blood. This is not a personal affront to me. These rules came into being for a reason. It's about what's safest for everyone. The rules hurt some people's feelings, but AIDS is a terrible disease that tortured and devastated and killed so many and still does. It's amazing how quickly people forget.
Because I'm underweight I also can't donate blood. This is not a personal affront to me. These rules came into being for a reason. It's about what's safest for everyone. The rules hurt some people's feelings, but AIDS is a terrible disease that tortured and devastated and killed so many and still does. It's amazing how quickly people forget.
41
That stinks! Im a transgender women who is gay. I didnt know that I cant give blood!
That is a horrible injustice. Also, how is it even enforcable? Dont they test all blood anyway?
Ugh, I can go to the bathroom. I cant give blood. I couldnt even get married until a few years ago. The list goes on...
That is a horrible injustice. Also, how is it even enforcable? Dont they test all blood anyway?
Ugh, I can go to the bathroom. I cant give blood. I couldnt even get married until a few years ago. The list goes on...
5
Your claim that you abstained from sex for a year so that you could donate blood is just not credible.
Even if someone said this, it is more likely than not they are lying. Perhaps someone who says this is telling the truth, but the majority people who would make such a claim are simply lying.
You are clearly politically motivated to make this statement. Strike one.
People don't choose to abstain from sex for the benefit of strangers. Strike two
Someone wouldn't do this to donate once--they would have to want to donate multiple times, which means continuing celibacy. Strike three.
You are probably not a priest. Strike four.
It may be that you abstained from sex, but it is more likely it was not voluntary, and more likely because you couldn't find any. Strike five.
In any league, five strikes is an out.
Even if someone said this, it is more likely than not they are lying. Perhaps someone who says this is telling the truth, but the majority people who would make such a claim are simply lying.
You are clearly politically motivated to make this statement. Strike one.
People don't choose to abstain from sex for the benefit of strangers. Strike two
Someone wouldn't do this to donate once--they would have to want to donate multiple times, which means continuing celibacy. Strike three.
You are probably not a priest. Strike four.
It may be that you abstained from sex, but it is more likely it was not voluntary, and more likely because you couldn't find any. Strike five.
In any league, five strikes is an out.
19
@Ptooie: That is an exceptionally rude comment you made here, and I can't fathom why you would be so rude to someone you don't even know. ABSOLUTELY someone would choose to abstain from sex for the benefit of strangers - it's called altruism. You know - generosity? kindness? Something you didn't display when you suggested that Mr. Franzone could not find a partner. Furthermore, he wouldn't have to wait much longer to give multiple times - you can give whole blood every 8 weeks and platelets up to 24 times a year. (You'd probably know that if you had been generous enough to give blood yourself.)
18
Im always amazed at how people just reflexively react when anything gay is put in front of them. The current system discriminates against gays, while allowing possibly HIV infected blood from heterosexuals to just flow on. If they can test for HIV after 30 days, then EVERYONE should be asked additional questions if they have had sex in the previous month. If they have had sex with only their partner and both have been tested in the last year, then they should be fine. Anyone, gay or hetero, who has had unsafe sex within 30 days should not be allowed to donate.
Thats both fair and much more effective. Unfortunately, as soon as heterosexual people hear gay they reflexively react, and say things like "I dont want your blood." For confirmation of this, look at the highest recommended comments.
Thats both fair and much more effective. Unfortunately, as soon as heterosexual people hear gay they reflexively react, and say things like "I dont want your blood." For confirmation of this, look at the highest recommended comments.
10
Giving blood is like joining the army or getting married: why do people assume the majority of gays wants to do any of that?
7
Since when was donating blood a right? Tests for HIV aren't perfect and the regimen for treating HIV isn't an easy one. Nobody should donate blood if they have ever had unprotected sex. I must admit that I have a bias - my brother died during the epidemic in the 80s, but I don't understand why anyone would promote anything but the most stringent safeguards.
17
@ John Ollinger: I am sorry about your brother. That was a horrendous time. But you do know that much more reliable and sensitive tests have been developed since then, right?
6
I object to the usage of the word "sex" in this piece, but as to the rest, who much cares anymore.
2
My husband and I have been absolutely monogamous for nearly 25 years. We also have had blood tests which came up negative for ANY type of transmissible disease or infection, including HIV/AIDS. Why in the world have we, and gay men like us, been lumped in with those who've had "risky" gay sex in the past 12 months? We used to be regular blood donors before the health crisis arose in the '80s. The loss to patients in need is incalculable - we're constantly hearing about blood shortages. Well, we're here and ready to donate, when the ignorant and fearful come to their senses. And this, of course, doesn't even address the other part of Mr. Franzone's polemic, about the advances in testing donated blood, which should make all of this moot!!!
12
"All forms of sex"? Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe, "All types of sexual intercourse with other people" would be more accurate.
5
Fine by me, we gays have had enough of our blood spilled in the past anyway, so I don't mind that we are hemoglobin hobgoblins, but I'm sanguine about the future.
6
If i understand the argument, the fact that AIDS is "controllable" somehow makes it OK (or not important) to transmit HIV through a blood transfusion. But there is no cure for AIDS. The treatment regimen is very expensive and includes many damaging side effects. I'm sorry but most reasonable people would be gravely concerned about the possibility of contracting this disease. And we balance this common sense precaution against what? A person's supposed "right" to donate blood? There is no such right. If the public is going to have confidence in the blood supply, there need to be safeguards in place.
24
@Steve: Sure, there need to be safeguards in place. I haven't seen anyone arguing with that. I don't think you do understand the argument, though. Mr. Franzone is stating that the current safeguards should be changed in light of current knowledge about viruses and risk factors.
8
I doubt he abstained. STDs among gays is still many times higher than the heterosexual population.
And why the overpowering desire to give blood in the first place? If I was told I couldn’t give blood because I like eating squid, for example, it would be no skin off my nose. And I wouldn’t go around trying to convince everyone and myself that eating squid is normal. I wouldn’t march in squid pride parades and demand grade school children be taught squid tolerance. But then again, it’s just a habit of mine. I don’t want to shove it in anyone else’s face.
And why the overpowering desire to give blood in the first place? If I was told I couldn’t give blood because I like eating squid, for example, it would be no skin off my nose. And I wouldn’t go around trying to convince everyone and myself that eating squid is normal. I wouldn’t march in squid pride parades and demand grade school children be taught squid tolerance. But then again, it’s just a habit of mine. I don’t want to shove it in anyone else’s face.
26
Recently watched a Swiss news program about blood donations there. The blood Swiss donors give is sold at a very high price to countries outside of Switzerland while blood banks in the US are selling blood from people with heart disease and other ailments to Switzerland. So yes, banning gay men (I am one of them) from donating blood is truly laughable. For reference the documentary was on the show called Temps Present on the Swiss national network.
3
I hope that our blood supply's safety isn't dependent on the honesty of donors about their sex life and drug usage. If it is, I think we should also examine the behavior among the non-gay population as well. However, the safety of the blood supply needs to have absolutely nothing to do with any political agenda or discussion about perceived slights or rights. The data on the validity of non-anonymous surveys is fairly clear - people lie and stretch the truth. The idea that this is a cornerstone of the safety of the blood supply is terrifying.
12
As a cancer survivor at a very young age, I was banned from giving blood for a long time until the Red Cross revised its rules. It was difficult to decide whether I wanted to tell my coworkers why I couldn't donate during blood drives; I didn't think my health history needed to be broadcast far and wide. At no time, however, did I feel that they were discriminating against me. I thought they were doing the best they could to protect recipients of blood donations.
12
I am all for caution on the part of the blood banks but singling out one lifestyle for screening in such a manner seems discriminatory and judgemental to me. Would the same organization ask a heterosexual donor whether they had engaged in unprotected sex in the year prior? If the answer is no, then asking a homosexual man the same question is unacceptable. Personally I think all blood should be tested before accepting donations.
11
There are still good, legitimate reasons why high risk populations are not allowed to donate blood. I wouldn't be in favor of a change in the guidelines without solid research to back a change. The blood supply must be kept safe and no transfusion recipient wants to risk contracting HIV, even if it is more easily treated now. I was turned away the last two times I tried to donate because I was anemic. Others at the same time were turned away because they had visited places where disease was a concern. There are other reasons people can't donate.
35
First, it's more than just HIV--other blood-borne diseases are screened for: anyone gay/straight can be deferred just living in a house with someone with hepatitis! Next, if memory serves, the donation questionnaire that I fill out at bloodmobiles does not ask pointedly if a person is gay/homosexual/or any other sexual orientation descriptor. It is true donors are asked about their sexual behavior but nothing close to "Oh, you're gay? Sorry, your blood's not welcomed." ALL donors, male and female, are asked EVERY time, (including regular/repeat/multiple pint donors), about high health risk factors and those of sexual partners in several contexts, including things like giving or receiving payment for sex, or IV drug use. Permanent deferrals can happen based on what countries you lived in during the 1980s-90s and for how long, and military service in certain countries for certain years. You can be deferred even if family members have symptoms common to Mad Cow disease. So it's inaccurate, and really not fair, to give the impression that gay donors are uniquely or systemically singled out only because of who they are. Wanting to donate blood is noble and to be encouraged. Here's a larger question: is an individual's desire to help or advance a societal cause more important than blood being as safe as possible for a recipient? Many people (see above) simply can't and probably shouldn't donate; what's truly sad is that far more are able to give and should give but don't.
17
"But this one-year blanket policy, which depends on the honesty of the would-be donor, still falls short by failing to consider a potential donor’s individual risk factors,"
"One alternative it is exploring is based on an individual risk assessment, in which potential donors would be asked a series of questions to determine whether they engaged in behaviors that put them at a high risk for contracting the virus."
The above alternative still depends on the honesty of the would-be donor!
"One alternative it is exploring is based on an individual risk assessment, in which potential donors would be asked a series of questions to determine whether they engaged in behaviors that put them at a high risk for contracting the virus."
The above alternative still depends on the honesty of the would-be donor!
4
Every article I see like this is acting like giving blood is a civil right. Like it or not, there has been a statistical reason for this rule. If that gets disproved, it'll change, and that's super-duper, for those donating and patients. But until then, we're still in the middle of forming good evidence-based policies.
And just to reinforce how uninformed people tend to be writing about this:
1) PCR testing, which he mentions, is really expensive and totally inappropriate for this
2) His entire "african american" argument conveys a substantial lack of understanding about conditional probability and the applicable statistics here.
In the end, these articles tend to be more ego-centric than based on concern for patients or trauma victims.
And just to reinforce how uninformed people tend to be writing about this:
1) PCR testing, which he mentions, is really expensive and totally inappropriate for this
2) His entire "african american" argument conveys a substantial lack of understanding about conditional probability and the applicable statistics here.
In the end, these articles tend to be more ego-centric than based on concern for patients or trauma victims.
22
Hmmm. I have to say, I'm not entirely sure what Franzone is trying to argue here. Or, least why he is writing this opinion. Is it simply the exclusion from being a donor as a sexually active gay man is, in fact, that? Exclusion as a group? If so, buck up, man. Just because there are higher heterosexual risks in certain cases does not negate or override the known risks in male same-sex encounters. So, I'm not sure what point this article is making. It would be great if more effective and affordable testing procedures rendered this a mute point. But, this is where we are now. There are many comments here about the greater and more imperative need of the medically compromised recipient; I agree that is the more critical criterion ultimately.
As a sexually active gay man, yes it's slightly annoying I cannot donate blood; but only a smidgen. Yes, when there are blood drives at work and I get asked if I am donating blood, it is an intrusion of my privacy and inconvenient. But, nothing compared to the person who needs the donation. I'm proud to be gay. I can easily provide an answer or defer. It's no skin off my teeth.
I do know one thing. As much as I would like to help out humankind, there's no way I'm practicing abstinence for a year. I can write a check to the Red Cross instead and wait.
As a sexually active gay man, yes it's slightly annoying I cannot donate blood; but only a smidgen. Yes, when there are blood drives at work and I get asked if I am donating blood, it is an intrusion of my privacy and inconvenient. But, nothing compared to the person who needs the donation. I'm proud to be gay. I can easily provide an answer or defer. It's no skin off my teeth.
I do know one thing. As much as I would like to help out humankind, there's no way I'm practicing abstinence for a year. I can write a check to the Red Cross instead and wait.
11
I hope that 2 million also inlcuded the 700,000 transgender women in the country.
Im a transgender woman married to another transgender woman. We are in a polyamorous relationship with a trans-man and genderqueer woman. However, in the eyes of the blood people, Im a gay man who has sex with two gay men and a woman.
That is just horribly demeaning. I am not a gay man, I am a pansexual transgender woman (I am attracted to men, women, and transgender/intersex/queer people). I use protection everytime, and get tested every six months. How many heterosexuals can say that?! None of my cisgender heterosexual friends get tested at all it seems, and by the number of pregnancies my friends have been having, they dont seem to be using much protection. Before I transitioned, I lived as a heterosexual man, and I got gonorrhea from my partner because she had unprotected sex with a previous partner, and then we had unprotected sex. After I transitioned, I noticed that all my new LGBTQ friends were obsessive about protection and testing. Ever since I transitioned, Ive never been it a situation where protection was not required by my partner, and where my partner had not been tested within the last 6 months.
I learned fast, and today I believe I am much safer than my heterosexual cisgender friends. However, I cant donate blood. That is a horrible injustice, and a civil rights issue.
By the way,, since I transitioned none of my LGBT friends or myself has contacted an STD.
Im a transgender woman married to another transgender woman. We are in a polyamorous relationship with a trans-man and genderqueer woman. However, in the eyes of the blood people, Im a gay man who has sex with two gay men and a woman.
That is just horribly demeaning. I am not a gay man, I am a pansexual transgender woman (I am attracted to men, women, and transgender/intersex/queer people). I use protection everytime, and get tested every six months. How many heterosexuals can say that?! None of my cisgender heterosexual friends get tested at all it seems, and by the number of pregnancies my friends have been having, they dont seem to be using much protection. Before I transitioned, I lived as a heterosexual man, and I got gonorrhea from my partner because she had unprotected sex with a previous partner, and then we had unprotected sex. After I transitioned, I noticed that all my new LGBTQ friends were obsessive about protection and testing. Ever since I transitioned, Ive never been it a situation where protection was not required by my partner, and where my partner had not been tested within the last 6 months.
I learned fast, and today I believe I am much safer than my heterosexual cisgender friends. However, I cant donate blood. That is a horrible injustice, and a civil rights issue.
By the way,, since I transitioned none of my LGBT friends or myself has contacted an STD.
1
"I learned fast, and today I believe I am much safer than my heterosexual cisgender friends. However, I cant donate blood. That is a horrible injustice, and a civil rights issue."
Congratulations on your learning and your safety practices. However, you still belong to a high risk group. Your deferral as a blood donor is based on scientific data (not anecdotal evidence), and it is not a horrible injustice or a civil rights issue. It is solely a matter of controlling risk for the recipients of blood donations.
Congratulations on your learning and your safety practices. However, you still belong to a high risk group. Your deferral as a blood donor is based on scientific data (not anecdotal evidence), and it is not a horrible injustice or a civil rights issue. It is solely a matter of controlling risk for the recipients of blood donations.
14
Somehow I was under the impression that safe, reliable methods had been developed for testing donated blood for HIV. Am I mistaken?
8
You are not mistaken. However, the cost involved with testing each blood sample for HIV is unreasonably high, moreso than with most other bloodborne illnesses.
4
Mr. Franzone seems to go the extra mile to give blood but not to vet his statistics (nor did the New York Times correct it). The CDC says approximately 375 people per 100,000 are HIV+ in the US. Mr Franzone quotes the statistics on new cases each year. (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/statistics.html).
Might Mr. Franzone have a slightly different view if his HIV+ rate were 30x what he quotes with 30x the dangers of transmission?
Might Mr. Franzone have a slightly different view if his HIV+ rate were 30x what he quotes with 30x the dangers of transmission?
25
Thank you for sharing your humble humane empathetic humanity to compare and contrast with the likes of Magic Johnson and Charlie Sheen. All donor risks should be treated equal.
4
All donor risks are treated equal now.
Gay people have greater risks and should be treated as such.
Gay people have greater risks and should be treated as such.
6
MY LATE SISTER'S Very close friend and her child both died from HIV AIDS during the epidemic because the mother was unknowingly given contaminated blood that she required to survive. Autologous donation was very rare because the need for it was also very rare, as with people who have type O Rh negative blood (who ironically are universal donors, but can only receive their own blood type). I'd be interested to see the results of the screening strategies in Spain and Italy that focus on high risk practices as opposed to sexual orientation. If epidemiological analysis shows that the criteria used in Italy and Spain result in the fewer donations of contaminated blood than are produced by the abstinence rule. Frankly I think that it's worthwhile to invest in blood tests for all perspective donors, which could probably be demonstrated to be less costly than the care for people who are give contaminated blood or the care for people with HIV and/or AIDS.
3
Arthur Ashe died from an HIV/AIDS blood transfusion in an age of unknown risks.
9
It's quite true that the risk of dying from Aids has dropped sharply. It's also true that on any given day, a new virus may be spawned that could affect the blood supply. It takes years to change a regulation/government rules for just about anything, sometimes because of studies and data, but usually because of bureaucracy. That is the downside of government, especially large governments with many over-lapping agencies and departments - the state of the US and much of the west today.
However, I'm hard pressed to understand Mr. Franzone. Is he upset because he believes he has a right to give blood? None of us have a right to give blood. We may choose to, but the red cross can also choose to say thank you, but no. If you have a fever, recently recovered from a sickness, are of low weight, anemic, recently traveled to areas where disease is prevalent, etc. It's not as though the red cross or Fed is homophobic. It's because people that need blood are already compromised and must be assured to the highest level that the transfused blood will not add to their suffering or a negative outcome. Depending on what components are desired, a tainted unit can be mixed with multiple units - for example, when creating platelet rich plasma. If the resulting unit tests positive for anything, all units must be destroyed.
What doesn't seem fair to you, Mr. Franzone, is actually a bit more complicated that being gay and possibly having aids. Gay is fine, risk should be avoided.
However, I'm hard pressed to understand Mr. Franzone. Is he upset because he believes he has a right to give blood? None of us have a right to give blood. We may choose to, but the red cross can also choose to say thank you, but no. If you have a fever, recently recovered from a sickness, are of low weight, anemic, recently traveled to areas where disease is prevalent, etc. It's not as though the red cross or Fed is homophobic. It's because people that need blood are already compromised and must be assured to the highest level that the transfused blood will not add to their suffering or a negative outcome. Depending on what components are desired, a tainted unit can be mixed with multiple units - for example, when creating platelet rich plasma. If the resulting unit tests positive for anything, all units must be destroyed.
What doesn't seem fair to you, Mr. Franzone, is actually a bit more complicated that being gay and possibly having aids. Gay is fine, risk should be avoided.
65
Better to be safe than risk possibly infecting others by donating blood from a known high risk group. Mistakes ARE made in labs. Screening is not an absolute safeguard. Over twenty years ago I stood in line at work to donate blood during a blood drive. A colleague of mine who was H.I.V. positive and also made a point of telling everyone about it especially so because he was one of the few who never contracteded AIDs also stood on line that line.
Although thereb was a policy that complete privacy was respected when one went in the room to donate as to not reveal that so called "straight" men could maintain their anonymity and not be what was then stigmatized. I'm sure my colleague would have been honest and would not be allowed to donate, I was deeply troubled by his lining up to do so. Surely he was trying to make a point. However I stepped off that line and have not given blood since although I did go to a hospital the day after 9/11 as thousands of other did, but as we know, unfortunately none was needed because nearly all were already dead. I wish the author would acknowledge that mistakes are always made and it is always a good decision to err on the side of caution especially when so many lives may be severely compromised by a human error. There are so many other battles to be fought.
Although thereb was a policy that complete privacy was respected when one went in the room to donate as to not reveal that so called "straight" men could maintain their anonymity and not be what was then stigmatized. I'm sure my colleague would have been honest and would not be allowed to donate, I was deeply troubled by his lining up to do so. Surely he was trying to make a point. However I stepped off that line and have not given blood since although I did go to a hospital the day after 9/11 as thousands of other did, but as we know, unfortunately none was needed because nearly all were already dead. I wish the author would acknowledge that mistakes are always made and it is always a good decision to err on the side of caution especially when so many lives may be severely compromised by a human error. There are so many other battles to be fought.
24
I wish you had stepped out of that line and gone to someone in charge and let them know your co-worker had told you and others he was HIV positive. I'm thinking of the HIV+ dentist who deliberately infected some of his patients. Several of them died.
I can understand why you did not do so, but you put a lot of faith in his being honest.
I can understand why you did not do so, but you put a lot of faith in his being honest.
5
Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should institute a tiered pricing system within the blood-transfusion industry.
Anyone who needs a transfusion can choose to pay for the level of quality-testing they prefer: from untested homeless-addict blood with no questions asked (cheapest) to certified one-year abstention blood with notarized questionnaire responses (most expensive).
The insurance companies would love it.
Anyone who needs a transfusion can choose to pay for the level of quality-testing they prefer: from untested homeless-addict blood with no questions asked (cheapest) to certified one-year abstention blood with notarized questionnaire responses (most expensive).
The insurance companies would love it.
4
Welcome to the club. I cannot give blood because I grew up in Europe and had a steak in England about 18 years ago (risk of BSE). OK with me, seems we have enough blood donors in this country. The author may want to check what is more important, the health of the blood recipient or the donor's altruistic feel good for having donated blood.
66
Contact your local blood center and ask if they have enough donors. I donate very frequently and am still solicited regularly about critical shortages. I believe your claim of enough donors to be untrue.
6
No exception to this rule, even though there are not enough donors. 60 donations in the UK and none in the last decade due to this rule. Ironically I can't donate when I visit the UK because they still consider the US has an HIV epidemic.
Nobody who lived in Europe for 5 years or more, between 1980 and the present can donate.
Rationale: Although there are no known cases of transfusion of vCJD, it is too early to rule out this possibility.
Too Early! Its 30 years!!! Yet 1 year abstinence is enough for HIV is adequate. I've been in the US 10 years but still can't donate.
Nobody who lived in Europe for 5 years or more, between 1980 and the present can donate.
Rationale: Although there are no known cases of transfusion of vCJD, it is too early to rule out this possibility.
Too Early! Its 30 years!!! Yet 1 year abstinence is enough for HIV is adequate. I've been in the US 10 years but still can't donate.
5
Agree that the blood screen rules as now crafted cost willing and healthy donors. I also have been ineligible to donate since the 90s, because I lived in the U.K. for 9 months in 1983. As my English friends say - wow, we don't have any restrictions like that! (They would not have a blood supply if they did). Prion disease screening surely doesn't require this level of caution in the US after 30 years!
7
I spent my junior year of college in London 30 years ago (1986-87), so I'm on the prohibited list also.
3
As a gay man who has been in a monogamous relationship for over three decades and who teaches on a college campus where there are frequent blood drives and where it's clear that many students, regardless of sexual identity, have multiple sex partners, I continue to find this ban wrong headed and insulting. I was also a volunteer at an AIDS hospice for a decade during the worst years of the crisis, so I know first hand how horrific AIDS can be.
We should focus on testing donated blood and developing more accurate ways of testing it, not on excluding categories of potential donors based on the criterion of the partner's sex. Conservative and liberal Americans frequently cite Dr. King's statement about judging individuals on the content of their character rather than some other characteristic (though to different ends and generally the focus is matters of race/ethnicity). This situation is one where that dictum (or one focusing on recency of sex with someone whose status is unknown) could easily apply, especially since the process relies on self-report data anyway. (In other words, I have no more or less reason to trust my husband's word than heterosexuals have to trust the pledges to monogamy of their spouses.) Gay men who had a history or donating before the AIDS epidemic or who wish to begin donating now have the option of lying or not donating. Neither is especially appealing, particularly since donating has in the past and is now tied up with notions of good citizenship.
We should focus on testing donated blood and developing more accurate ways of testing it, not on excluding categories of potential donors based on the criterion of the partner's sex. Conservative and liberal Americans frequently cite Dr. King's statement about judging individuals on the content of their character rather than some other characteristic (though to different ends and generally the focus is matters of race/ethnicity). This situation is one where that dictum (or one focusing on recency of sex with someone whose status is unknown) could easily apply, especially since the process relies on self-report data anyway. (In other words, I have no more or less reason to trust my husband's word than heterosexuals have to trust the pledges to monogamy of their spouses.) Gay men who had a history or donating before the AIDS epidemic or who wish to begin donating now have the option of lying or not donating. Neither is especially appealing, particularly since donating has in the past and is now tied up with notions of good citizenship.
11
The selfishness of those who feel they have a right to have their blood transfused into another persons body is incredible. There is no such right. The person accepting the blood can choose to take it for no reason or for any reason. They can choose to take it if you are skinny, fat, or if you live near the ocean. People have the right to put anything in their body or keep it out and others have no rights whatsoever to foist their bodily fluids on another. If some people feel more comfortable not accepting blood from a certain group --any group --for any reason--they don't have to take it. Period.
4
I can't give blood because I was stationed in England during mad cow disease. As far as I know it's a lifetime ban.
10
Look, get back to me when you've addressed the lifetime ban on blood donors who have lived in Britain for more than three months. We are accused of being alleged carriers of Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease, and there's no campaign on our behalf. Strangely, there seems to be no shortage of blood donors actually in Britain. Possibly they don't recognize the risk?
7
You are not "accused" of anything. It is a preventive measure. The ban applies not only to Britain but to several other European countries. Different countries have different deferral policies in place. This is but one example: https://www.giveblood.ie/Become_a_Donor/Keeping_Blood_Safe/vCJD_FAQs/
7
Or, more likely, UK regulators either don't consider it a risk, or it is impossible to find people who don't fit the category.
If the latter is true, it would be highly instructive to see if ANY variant Creutzfeld-Jakob occurrences can be tied to blood donation. The absence of that would indicate that the risk is infinitesimal to nil.
If the latter is true, it would be highly instructive to see if ANY variant Creutzfeld-Jakob occurrences can be tied to blood donation. The absence of that would indicate that the risk is infinitesimal to nil.
4
All cases of BSE have been tied to either having eaten contaminated food or a blood transfusion.
1
OK, New York Times. Now give us a story that depicts the other side of the coin, so that people can really reach their own conclusions.
For starters, how about an article on the devastating effects that contaminated blood products had on the hemophilia community in the 80s? Thousands of people with hemophilia were contaminated with either the VIH or the Hepatitis C virus through tainted blood products, and died because of it.
Even if only 1% of the donated blood carries a pathogen that goes undetected, it can cause havoc (and death) in the communities whose lives are dependent on blood products. The risk is just too great.
So, what is more important?, one of the above patient's potential death or catering to a gay person who will feel good for being able to donate blood, regardless of the risk?
Furthermore, the measures that are in place have a scientific background. Studies are being conducted to make the measures more inclusive, but it takes time. And the measures are not targeting the gay community specifically. It is not like the scientific community is attacking gay rights or has a gender bias. For instance, people who ate meat and lived in countries where there were cases of mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE) are also deferred for blood donations. BSE is fatal and can take up to 20 years after a transfusion to show up in a patient.
I am looking forward to the New York Times providing the full picture of this controversial issue.
For starters, how about an article on the devastating effects that contaminated blood products had on the hemophilia community in the 80s? Thousands of people with hemophilia were contaminated with either the VIH or the Hepatitis C virus through tainted blood products, and died because of it.
Even if only 1% of the donated blood carries a pathogen that goes undetected, it can cause havoc (and death) in the communities whose lives are dependent on blood products. The risk is just too great.
So, what is more important?, one of the above patient's potential death or catering to a gay person who will feel good for being able to donate blood, regardless of the risk?
Furthermore, the measures that are in place have a scientific background. Studies are being conducted to make the measures more inclusive, but it takes time. And the measures are not targeting the gay community specifically. It is not like the scientific community is attacking gay rights or has a gender bias. For instance, people who ate meat and lived in countries where there were cases of mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE) are also deferred for blood donations. BSE is fatal and can take up to 20 years after a transfusion to show up in a patient.
I am looking forward to the New York Times providing the full picture of this controversial issue.
72
OK, RoseMarie, I'll bite.
In late 1981, my mother had a bleeding ulcer. She was admitted to Columbia-Presbyterian, in the ICU for a week. She received 6 units of blood, at least one of which was tainted. At the time, donors were paid for blood, attracting a lot of IV drug abusers. Now, people who have illegally injected drugs, including steroids, are permanently excluded, though reporting is on the honor system.
My mother was completely asymptomatic until 1987, remained undiagnosed until 1992. When diagnosed, and only on AZT, she was given a year to live. With the advent of protease inhibitors, she lived a few weeks more than ten years. It was no picnic, for sure. I was the person with the responsibility of getting her to monthly doctors appointments, filling prescriptions, filling pill arrays, and coaxing her to take 30+ pills/day. Without the blood, tainted as it was, she surely would have died in 1981, and missed her three children getting married, the love of six grandchildren, and other blessings.
I am not sure of any evidence of BSE through blood donations. Rather, I think it is extreme caution and lack of clarity about the behavior of prions in infection.
And, by the way, I am a frequent platelet donor, with over 225 multiunit donations, and another dozen whole blood donations.
In late 1981, my mother had a bleeding ulcer. She was admitted to Columbia-Presbyterian, in the ICU for a week. She received 6 units of blood, at least one of which was tainted. At the time, donors were paid for blood, attracting a lot of IV drug abusers. Now, people who have illegally injected drugs, including steroids, are permanently excluded, though reporting is on the honor system.
My mother was completely asymptomatic until 1987, remained undiagnosed until 1992. When diagnosed, and only on AZT, she was given a year to live. With the advent of protease inhibitors, she lived a few weeks more than ten years. It was no picnic, for sure. I was the person with the responsibility of getting her to monthly doctors appointments, filling prescriptions, filling pill arrays, and coaxing her to take 30+ pills/day. Without the blood, tainted as it was, she surely would have died in 1981, and missed her three children getting married, the love of six grandchildren, and other blessings.
I am not sure of any evidence of BSE through blood donations. Rather, I think it is extreme caution and lack of clarity about the behavior of prions in infection.
And, by the way, I am a frequent platelet donor, with over 225 multiunit donations, and another dozen whole blood donations.
6
Sophistry does not serve the purpose here - risk mitigation is all about statistical risks. The author glosses over the stats with a throw-away reference. From the most recent CDC longitudinal study on this question:
"Although MSM (men having sex with men) represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 MSM accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males."
The HIV incidence rate was 469 per 100,000 MSM.
The HIV incidence rate was 3.6 per 100,000 men who do not have sex with men.
MSM are 131 times more likely to get HIV than men who do not have sex with men.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_hssr_vol_17_no_4.pdf
This is clearly an unacceptable risk group to satisfy a vague urge for inclusion in the blood donor segment. Here is a more engaging question - decades after this crisis - how come gay men continue to behave in a culturally damaging fashion?
"Although MSM (men having sex with men) represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 MSM accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males."
The HIV incidence rate was 469 per 100,000 MSM.
The HIV incidence rate was 3.6 per 100,000 men who do not have sex with men.
MSM are 131 times more likely to get HIV than men who do not have sex with men.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_hssr_vol_17_no_4.pdf
This is clearly an unacceptable risk group to satisfy a vague urge for inclusion in the blood donor segment. Here is a more engaging question - decades after this crisis - how come gay men continue to behave in a culturally damaging fashion?
43
If you look into these numbers you will also find that the majority of these new infections occur primarily in minorities. This is not a new story - minorities, generally experience the brunt of these problems because of lack of many support and access that the white and wealthier communities do. There is a drug that can prevent the spread of HIV, Truvada, but go to your nearest health center located in a minority/disenfranchised neighborhood and see what kind of access to this drug they have. You'll see very little. We live in a racist/classist society that generally benefits the white majority and ignores those on the fringes. That's why.
2
"Behave in a culturally damaging fashion"? Here's another question: decades after the end of the 1950s, how come New York Times readers continue to engage in blanket stereotyping and slut-shaming?
3
As I was reading the article in my physical edition earlier I kept looking for the sentence(s), or paragraph(s) explaining how he FELT about abstaining for a year, or rather, explaining his thought process about why a gay man would conform to a corporate, political, societal (or combination) decision that he readily explains is most likely ill-advised, mostly unnecessary and certainly homophobic. I was left wanting.
I didn't understand. Was I missing something? How could anyone who had lived through the plague, anyone who had felt the door of the New York Blood Center (and others) closing in his face (when he offered to give blood), because he was gay and therefore forced to wear a pink triangle for more than a decade and essentially one whose blood was considered poison regardless of his HIV status?
Then I remembered. I googled him and realized I had read about him before. He had been interviewed by everyone when he started this quest and again at about 6-8 months in. He barely discussed how he felt, again, as a gay man, having to willingly chosen to conform. Instead, a few of the articles mention that several months into a new relationship, he and his boyfriend realized they just couldn't get over "the lack of sex". Expecting to read about the depth of the emotions the two men had felt even though they couldn't 'consummate' their love, again I was left wanting.
But then I read three words that explained it all. When he started this experiment...He was 21
I didn't understand. Was I missing something? How could anyone who had lived through the plague, anyone who had felt the door of the New York Blood Center (and others) closing in his face (when he offered to give blood), because he was gay and therefore forced to wear a pink triangle for more than a decade and essentially one whose blood was considered poison regardless of his HIV status?
Then I remembered. I googled him and realized I had read about him before. He had been interviewed by everyone when he started this quest and again at about 6-8 months in. He barely discussed how he felt, again, as a gay man, having to willingly chosen to conform. Instead, a few of the articles mention that several months into a new relationship, he and his boyfriend realized they just couldn't get over "the lack of sex". Expecting to read about the depth of the emotions the two men had felt even though they couldn't 'consummate' their love, again I was left wanting.
But then I read three words that explained it all. When he started this experiment...He was 21
7
I had to repress an urge to roll my eyes and groan when I read this. I am a 60 year old gay man from New York. I remember well the horrors of the 80s and 90s, and how many of my friends are no longer alive to read this.
To the writer: Is this really the focus of your life? Asserting your "right" to donate blood? I don't think anyone actually has one, but medical authorities are certainly entitled to judge who is eligible to donate based on an assessment of the risk they present. It is spectacularly unhelpful to the cause of equality for gay people (which, after all, is at the foundation of your argument) to try to elbow your way into the donations line by claiming the current guidelines are unfair to gay men. If your point is that there are better ways of reducing the risk of HIV transmission than banning an entire class of people from donating, then I agree — but there's no use pretending that fear (and perhaps still a bit of loathing as well) don't enter into the calculation. Given the current political climate, being perceived by the public as trying to force our way in is likely to have a poor outcome.
To others: The fact is that, given the current testing routinely done with donated blood, the risk of a transfusion HIV transmission is 1 in 1,500,000 — considerably less than the risk of a number of other potentially fatal diseases: Hepatitis B, for example, which carries a transfusion risk of 1 in 800,000. The risk of being in a plane crash is 1 in 1,000,000.
To the writer: Is this really the focus of your life? Asserting your "right" to donate blood? I don't think anyone actually has one, but medical authorities are certainly entitled to judge who is eligible to donate based on an assessment of the risk they present. It is spectacularly unhelpful to the cause of equality for gay people (which, after all, is at the foundation of your argument) to try to elbow your way into the donations line by claiming the current guidelines are unfair to gay men. If your point is that there are better ways of reducing the risk of HIV transmission than banning an entire class of people from donating, then I agree — but there's no use pretending that fear (and perhaps still a bit of loathing as well) don't enter into the calculation. Given the current political climate, being perceived by the public as trying to force our way in is likely to have a poor outcome.
To others: The fact is that, given the current testing routinely done with donated blood, the risk of a transfusion HIV transmission is 1 in 1,500,000 — considerably less than the risk of a number of other potentially fatal diseases: Hepatitis B, for example, which carries a transfusion risk of 1 in 800,000. The risk of being in a plane crash is 1 in 1,000,000.
18
I really liked your post, Tim, especially the first part of it, and the fact that it is a message from one gay man to another (because when the same message comes from heterosexuals we tend to immediately and unfairly be labeled as anti-gay). On the last paragraph, though, I can only comment that, if you were the 1 in 1,500,000 patient who will receive the contaminated blood product, and possibly die or become chronically ill as a result, you would want all and every precautions to remain in place. There are millions of people in the world who can donate blood without posing a risk. Accepting blood from a minority who carries a risk, as minimal as it might be, is not sound from a scientific point of view. Progress goes slowly on this issue, but one day things will eventually change.
3
Your comment is incorrect. The risk of transmission is unknown, because high-risk individuals (gay men) are not allowed to donate. And, in point of fact, the time from acquiring the infection to detectability by current tests is unknown, since the moment of acquiring the virus is unknown for many who become ill - due to multiple partners and such. We CERTAINLY should not allow gay men to contribute blood.
6
You can solve the problem very simply if you are willing to give up political correctness. Let Gay Men donate blood ONLY for Gay Men or women use. Risk normalized. And, the Gay man does NOt have to abstain from sex.
10
I don't understand what you're saying here- gay men should only be allowed to donate blood for use by gay men or women? Women and gay men don't all have HIV. This makes no sense at all.
11
If America doesn't think my blood is worthy enough for its blood banks, it won't get my blood. It won't get my full loyalty and trust either.
4
I'd like to know how many people are infected by contaminated blood in Italy and Spain.
1
I don't really want to cast doubt on Mr. Franzone's assertion, but was it really so important to him to donate one pint of blood that he abstained from sex for a year in order to do so? Editors might think a bit harder before allowing such contributions. Also, he tells us that the national HIV rate per 100,000 people is 12.6. Really? If only 12.6 people per 100,000 have the HIV virus, then we have only about 15,000 HIV positive people in the United States. That, of course, is total nonsense. If the 12.6 was meant to be a percentage, then we have about 40 million HIV positive people in the U.S. That also seems rather impossible. Again, editors should think more carefully before allowing such Op-Ed pieces into print. In six months time, I will have been donating blood on a regular basis for 60 years, and I have seen many changes in the requirements for doing so, only some of them having anything to do with HIV. But to aver that since the chances are so much smaller today than they used to be for HIV transmission, but that if a blood recipient ends up with it, that's okay because there are treatments to cover it (that does seem to be what he's saying) is almost savage in its disregard of the danger purely for the sake of some kind of misguided gay rights agenda. If you think otherwise, let's ask a couple of well-known people - like Arthur Ashe and Amanda Blake - how they feel about having died from unknowingly contracting aids, Mr. Ashe from a blood transfusion.
54
Your math is incorrect. There are more than 318 million people in the U.S.
1
Regarding the HIV rate, he left out a word -- 12.6 per 100,000 is, in fact, the correct rate for HIV *diagnoses*. It is not the rate of people living with HIV. Here's a link from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html
So, he left out a word. You imply he's obfuscating in some way, which is clearly not the case. Nor did he ever in any way suggest that we should disregard the danger. He is saying that the data are pretty clear that there IS NO INCREASED DANGER from allowing gay men, appropriately screened as all other donors are screened, to donate blood. The US is behind the times here, and it's probably largely because of people like you who can't get beyond prejudice and accept the science.
Sure people have contracted HIV from blood transfusions. Currently, however, we have very sophisticated techniques of decting HIV and many other communicable diseases in the blood supply. That's important, but relatively irrelevant in this discussion, because the important point is that the risk stratification between well-screened MSM donors and well-screened non-MSM donors doesn't support banning all MSMs from donating blood.
Since gay men were frequent blood donors prior to the HIV crisis, it's reasonable to believe that allowing them to donate blood again would actually have a meaningful impact on our blood supplies.
So, he left out a word. You imply he's obfuscating in some way, which is clearly not the case. Nor did he ever in any way suggest that we should disregard the danger. He is saying that the data are pretty clear that there IS NO INCREASED DANGER from allowing gay men, appropriately screened as all other donors are screened, to donate blood. The US is behind the times here, and it's probably largely because of people like you who can't get beyond prejudice and accept the science.
Sure people have contracted HIV from blood transfusions. Currently, however, we have very sophisticated techniques of decting HIV and many other communicable diseases in the blood supply. That's important, but relatively irrelevant in this discussion, because the important point is that the risk stratification between well-screened MSM donors and well-screened non-MSM donors doesn't support banning all MSMs from donating blood.
Since gay men were frequent blood donors prior to the HIV crisis, it's reasonable to believe that allowing them to donate blood again would actually have a meaningful impact on our blood supplies.
4
Ashe's tainted transfusion, like my mother's, came at a time when donors were routinely paid for their blood, and IV drug abusers ("junkies," back in the day) were not excluded. In fact, it is far more likely that the culpable donor was a drug addict than a gay man. My mother was in the ICU for a week with a bleeding ulcer in late 1981, and lived until early 2003. Without 6 transfusions, tainted or not, she surely would not have lived to see 1982, let alone three children married, and to bask in the love of 6 grandchildren. Perspective, perhaps?
I, too, am a very regular donor. My thinking is that the testing is, and should be, much more accurate to identify tainted donations. They pull five vials of blood for testing for every donation. If they need to pull more, they should do so. It seems to me that most dangerous infections should be identifiable now. The questionnaire, now 60+ questions and counting, is entirely on the honor system.
I, too, am a very regular donor. My thinking is that the testing is, and should be, much more accurate to identify tainted donations. They pull five vials of blood for testing for every donation. If they need to pull more, they should do so. It seems to me that most dangerous infections should be identifiable now. The questionnaire, now 60+ questions and counting, is entirely on the honor system.
4
You gave up sex for a year... Don't you have to hand in your pink card by that point? That's a really expensive pint of blood!
I wonder if it might be more to the point to expand on the provisions to freeze your own blood for future use? I think that topic is usually raised in connection with keeping an individual safe from the general supply, but why not promote it as a way to prevent individuals from being a drain on the general supply?
If I can't donate blood for use by other people, I could at least support the general blood supply by storing some for my own use. (a year!)
I wonder if it might be more to the point to expand on the provisions to freeze your own blood for future use? I think that topic is usually raised in connection with keeping an individual safe from the general supply, but why not promote it as a way to prevent individuals from being a drain on the general supply?
If I can't donate blood for use by other people, I could at least support the general blood supply by storing some for my own use. (a year!)
5
It is possible that there are or will be blood born pathogens as yet unknown that are HIV, Hep B or Hep C like. It is quite likely that men who have sex with men, prostitutes, IV drug abusers and others with high risk behavior will be at substantially higher risk for such a disease than others. In fact, thousands died (lost many years of expected life) from blood and blood products contaminated by HIV before we knew it existed. This is a reasonable and rational reason for restricting donations from persons with elevated risk.
Yes, the FDA could rationally change screening and testing regimes to allow more donations without appreciably increasing the risk. Restrictions on high risk people, however, make sense. More sense than other blood donation restrictions - such as asking known donors their gender 3 times during each donation.
Yes, the FDA could rationally change screening and testing regimes to allow more donations without appreciably increasing the risk. Restrictions on high risk people, however, make sense. More sense than other blood donation restrictions - such as asking known donors their gender 3 times during each donation.
11
Adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality need to be tolerated but not promoted. There have always been consequences to living on the moral edge. Marriage between virgins is the best policy to fight sexually transmitted disease. Free contraception from the government sends the wrong message about health, population control and good government. I am sick and tired of homosexuals attempting to bend the natural rules of civilization to make a point about adoption, marriage, religion, education and now blood donation.
I have been donating blood for over forty years and I like to think that my donations have helped people without regard to race, sexual orientation, politics, or any other factor apart from medical need. If the blood bank hounds me for an extra donation this year because the supply is low, I’ll give it.
It is more important to keep the blood bank safe than to recruit donations from risky populations. I know perfectly healthy nurses who have accidently pricked themselves with a needle used in their job, who must wait a year before donating blood. The year may seem excessive but it is reasonable. If your lifestyle puts your blood at risk, there are many other ways to give back and show that you are a decent person without donating your blood. Extreme political positions have blinded too many to practical rules and customs. Large egos on the left, as Jay Franzone seems to have, should not put others at risk or inconvenience.
I have been donating blood for over forty years and I like to think that my donations have helped people without regard to race, sexual orientation, politics, or any other factor apart from medical need. If the blood bank hounds me for an extra donation this year because the supply is low, I’ll give it.
It is more important to keep the blood bank safe than to recruit donations from risky populations. I know perfectly healthy nurses who have accidently pricked themselves with a needle used in their job, who must wait a year before donating blood. The year may seem excessive but it is reasonable. If your lifestyle puts your blood at risk, there are many other ways to give back and show that you are a decent person without donating your blood. Extreme political positions have blinded too many to practical rules and customs. Large egos on the left, as Jay Franzone seems to have, should not put others at risk or inconvenience.
18
The logical conclusion of your morally rigid "policy" recommendation is that blood donation should be limited to people who were married as virgins. Good luck with that.
6
Writer Francine over estimates his ability to perceive risk and under estimates what it takes to avoid it. The risk to him is minimal, but the risk to the patient could be fatal.
33
Their policies should extend beyond their stereotypes, at least to this hematologist.
9
Why can't people who engage in risky sex engage in protective wear? Need he have abstained if he'd used condoms regularly?
Plus -- abstainingi is really not a big deal. Many of us have -- for reasons more unpleasant than wanting to give blood. When my husband was ill, I was abstaining; members of certain clergy, both men and women take vows of lifetime celibacy; etc.
So, really, if you're looking for a sympathetic ear, um, I don't think so.
Plus -- abstainingi is really not a big deal. Many of us have -- for reasons more unpleasant than wanting to give blood. When my husband was ill, I was abstaining; members of certain clergy, both men and women take vows of lifetime celibacy; etc.
So, really, if you're looking for a sympathetic ear, um, I don't think so.
7
If by "engage in protective wear" you mean use condoms, many gay men do use them -- but are still barred from giving blood. The point here is that the selection of blood donors should be decided based on individual behavior, not arbitrarily based on the identity of the individual.
4
Eva, I guess you are not a blood donor. Because the questions do not ask about using protection...at all. I assume that they assume that condoms will fail.
But there is more: women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man (no mention of protection on either end) are deferred for a year.
People who have had sex with a person with hepatitis, or who even live with a person with hepatitis are deferred fir a year.
People who have been in jail or juvenile lockup for more than 72 hours are deferred for a year.
But there is more: women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man (no mention of protection on either end) are deferred for a year.
People who have had sex with a person with hepatitis, or who even live with a person with hepatitis are deferred fir a year.
People who have been in jail or juvenile lockup for more than 72 hours are deferred for a year.
6
While I admire Jay Franzone's blood donation commitment, I still believe that every caution should be taken to protect our blood supply. In 2014, according to the CDC, gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States. During 2015, 70% of ALL new HIV diagnosis in the USA were from men who had sexual relations with other men. If we use the NY Times 2013 estimation that 5% of men are sexually attracted to men, then we have about 2.5% of the total US male/female population of all races accounting for 70% of all new HIV infections.
There are other precautions being taken that may seem nonsensical. After successfully donating six gallons of blood over the course of many years a false and disproven hepatitis C determination resulted in my FOREVER being banned from donating more blood. My step daughter was rejected because she had visited the Dalai Lama in Dharamshala, India two years previously. Her husband, who is a healthy adult physician in his late thirties and father of two was rejected because he had legally immigrated to the USA from Moldova at the age of twelve. I believe that anyone who as been infected with a blood borne disease from a transfusion or who has had that happen with a loved one would support erring on the side of caution.
There are other precautions being taken that may seem nonsensical. After successfully donating six gallons of blood over the course of many years a false and disproven hepatitis C determination resulted in my FOREVER being banned from donating more blood. My step daughter was rejected because she had visited the Dalai Lama in Dharamshala, India two years previously. Her husband, who is a healthy adult physician in his late thirties and father of two was rejected because he had legally immigrated to the USA from Moldova at the age of twelve. I believe that anyone who as been infected with a blood borne disease from a transfusion or who has had that happen with a loved one would support erring on the side of caution.
16
I have skimmed other articles which indicated that a ban on donations from gay men was no longer necessary. That may be the case- if blood is safe o use the restriction is too extreme.
BUT I want to see is a link to research that gives me some clue of the risk of missing viral infections that may be a threat to the health of recipients. There have been some major glitches in the past which we do not want to repeat.
As for giving up "all sex," that's your choice, but not compelling as an argument for a policy change that affects other people. Its a decision to be made on the basis of science and not on the basis of feelings.
So, let's ask the FDA to present the probabilities of transmission of HIV ( and prion diseases, and other things I don't know about), and make decisions based on that - with prudence being a key value.
BUT I want to see is a link to research that gives me some clue of the risk of missing viral infections that may be a threat to the health of recipients. There have been some major glitches in the past which we do not want to repeat.
As for giving up "all sex," that's your choice, but not compelling as an argument for a policy change that affects other people. Its a decision to be made on the basis of science and not on the basis of feelings.
So, let's ask the FDA to present the probabilities of transmission of HIV ( and prion diseases, and other things I don't know about), and make decisions based on that - with prudence being a key value.
16
Cherly, for a layman, I know quite a bit about this situation. I have 225 lifetime platelet donations, mostly multiple unit, and counting. My mother was infected with HIV by a tainted blood transfusion in 1981, a time when blood banks were paying for donations. In fact, her infection was much more likely to have stemmed from a drug addict selling blood than from an infected gay man.
As for prion diseases, like Creutzfeld-Jakob, the questionnaire asks if you have any relatives, or if you have been diagnosed, and asks a bunch of questions about how long one spent in Europe during the period of Mad Cow issues. So five years is a disqualification, but 4 years, 364 days is not.
The bottom line is that a lot of the disqualifiers on the questionnaire are purely arbitrary. Some, like having had malaria, hepatitis, HIV infection, are not. Every donation, the blood center draws five vials of blood for testing. It seems that state of the art testing should trump a lot (over 60, and counting) of honor system questioning. If a few more vials are required for comprehensive testing, by all means, do THAT. I receive frequent e-mails about critical need for blood and, especially, platelet, donations. And most years I donate platelets 20 times. The maximum allowable number of platelet donations is 24 in a rolling year.
As for prion diseases, like Creutzfeld-Jakob, the questionnaire asks if you have any relatives, or if you have been diagnosed, and asks a bunch of questions about how long one spent in Europe during the period of Mad Cow issues. So five years is a disqualification, but 4 years, 364 days is not.
The bottom line is that a lot of the disqualifiers on the questionnaire are purely arbitrary. Some, like having had malaria, hepatitis, HIV infection, are not. Every donation, the blood center draws five vials of blood for testing. It seems that state of the art testing should trump a lot (over 60, and counting) of honor system questioning. If a few more vials are required for comprehensive testing, by all means, do THAT. I receive frequent e-mails about critical need for blood and, especially, platelet, donations. And most years I donate platelets 20 times. The maximum allowable number of platelet donations is 24 in a rolling year.
9
Thank you, Paul and Mr. Franzone. Even the nurses/phlebotomists where I donate platelets are puzzled by some of the health questions and restrictions. The only reliable answers are in those 5 little vials.
5
Thank you Paul for exposing the ridiculousness of the current ban on vCJD risk.
4 years 364 days eating a nice roast beef for dinner each day is OK, but a vegan living there one extra day is banned. Go figure!
4 years 364 days eating a nice roast beef for dinner each day is OK, but a vegan living there one extra day is banned. Go figure!
4
Years ago I tried to give blood at a blood drive..because I was born in South Africa I was taken aside and was asked very loudly if I ever had anal sex with anyone from Ghana, or if I ever paid to have sex with anyone from Ghana. One could hear a penny drop. I had clearly entered the twilight zone. And I left very quickly vowing to never return. And when I get the calls begging to donate blood, how can I even begin to explain why I will never attempt to give blood again? No good deed goes unpunished. A ridiculous and archaic system run by uneducated and stupid people.
65
Your experience was weird. In years and years of donating, I have never heard anyone being questioned loudly by anyone: the standard is you write your answers on the questionnaire; then the screener reviews them, and asks questions that qualify any answers that require further elaboration. And you are asked to put a sticker on your own form that indicates that, by what you understand, your blood is safe to donate.
26
Indeed, it seems you are letting your first impression bias you. I'm sorry you had that experience, but at least in all the times I've donated blood, I have never not been behind at least a screen, asked those questions discreetly. Nowadays many places even use computers to ask the questions so there is no volume at all -- just mouse clicks.
I encourage you to give it a second chance.
I encourage you to give it a second chance.
6
Cheryl is right. In the New York Blood Center where I have donated over 225 times, the interviews are in cubicles where the phlebotomist is required to run a white noise machine just so answers are kept confidential.
14
In this debate, we should not confuse gay rights with protecting public health. As recently as September 2016, the CDC grimly reported:
"If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men."
It is not homophobic to point out that the gay community continues to suffer from high rates of infectious diseases. Prior to the recognition of AIDS, one physician commented that conditions here were not unlike a Third World country in regards to infections and that a "new" disease would be devastating. Sadly, he was proven true.
It is what we do not know that is perhaps more dangerous than what we do. Others disease are lurking out there and ready to mutate into something dangerous. Can we guess where these would likely first appear? If so, precautions are necessary.
"If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men."
It is not homophobic to point out that the gay community continues to suffer from high rates of infectious diseases. Prior to the recognition of AIDS, one physician commented that conditions here were not unlike a Third World country in regards to infections and that a "new" disease would be devastating. Sadly, he was proven true.
It is what we do not know that is perhaps more dangerous than what we do. Others disease are lurking out there and ready to mutate into something dangerous. Can we guess where these would likely first appear? If so, precautions are necessary.
115
@David
This is non-news, worse than fake news.
At a time when we believe that 10% of the population is gay, wildly overstated but stay with me, 2/3's of whom are male, and a ridiculously infinitesimal number of that population may be stepping forward to donate blood, we are talking about 2 guys from LA.
Stop reporting the grievances of a tiny cohort who cannot give blood, need their own bathrooms, and on and on.
All pointless and unimportant relative to the world's problems.
This is non-news, worse than fake news.
At a time when we believe that 10% of the population is gay, wildly overstated but stay with me, 2/3's of whom are male, and a ridiculously infinitesimal number of that population may be stepping forward to donate blood, we are talking about 2 guys from LA.
Stop reporting the grievances of a tiny cohort who cannot give blood, need their own bathrooms, and on and on.
All pointless and unimportant relative to the world's problems.
4
Your last few sentences imply these "other diseases" are likely to come from homosexual persons. Can you please substantiate that claim or is it simply fear mongering?
Furthermore, you don't address the fact that there are other classifications of people that would be more effective in preventing the donation of potentially infected blood. The author specifically mentions that Washington, D.C. has a higher rate of infection than homosexual persons. Shouldn't we ban donations in order of likelihood of infection? Therefore, shouldn't banning everyone in Washington, D.C. come before banning all homosexual persons from donating?
Furthermore, you don't address the fact that there are other classifications of people that would be more effective in preventing the donation of potentially infected blood. The author specifically mentions that Washington, D.C. has a higher rate of infection than homosexual persons. Shouldn't we ban donations in order of likelihood of infection? Therefore, shouldn't banning everyone in Washington, D.C. come before banning all homosexual persons from donating?
5
As the essay clearly states: "heterosexuals who have unprotected sex with people who don’t know their status have a higher risk of contracting the virus than a gay man who uses protection with someone who knows his status."
So yeah, it's about irrational fears of gay people.
So yeah, it's about irrational fears of gay people.
8
CORRECTION to a sentence in the first paragraph of my submission a moment ago:
INCORRECT Why? Because virtually all gay donors had realized they were at risk; they had stopped giving.
CORRECTED: Why? Because virtually all gay donors who had realized they were at risk had stopped giving.
INCORRECT Why? Because virtually all gay donors had realized they were at risk; they had stopped giving.
CORRECTED: Why? Because virtually all gay donors who had realized they were at risk had stopped giving.
8
Luttguen's joking comment is misinformed and misleading.
Data compiled in San Francisco in the 1990s demonstrated that, on the day the first HIV test was ever performed on a unit of blood in that city, the risk of HIV infection through transfusion had already dropped spectacularly -- by 97% (!). Why? Because virtually all gay donors had realized they were at risk; they had stopped giving.
Human behavior: 97%. Expensive lab testing: 3%.
No one should be surprised. Volunteer human donors are not "blood cows"; they are ethical, thinking, feeling, people, several notches above "homo economicus".
Years earlier, the great British sociologist Richard Titmuss had presented data (in The Gift Relationship) that blood from volunteer donors was safer, less expensive, and less subject to shortages than blood from paid donors.
In the free-enterprise US "market" theorists lobbied for legal purchase of body parts; purchased blood was 1/3rd of the supply, unlike Britain's 100% voluntary blood system. But people had begun to rebel.
J. Garrott Allen, a Chicago surgeon, demonstrated that purchased blood was 10x more likely to give fatal hepatitis to his patients than blood from volunteers. In 1972, Gov. Richard Ogilvie signed the "Illinois blood labeling act". We went all-volunteer in less than a year. The nation followed.
Today, the US blood supply is overwhelmingly volunteer. Blood from well-informed volunteers wins on all counts: it's safer, more reliable, and lower in cost.
Data compiled in San Francisco in the 1990s demonstrated that, on the day the first HIV test was ever performed on a unit of blood in that city, the risk of HIV infection through transfusion had already dropped spectacularly -- by 97% (!). Why? Because virtually all gay donors had realized they were at risk; they had stopped giving.
Human behavior: 97%. Expensive lab testing: 3%.
No one should be surprised. Volunteer human donors are not "blood cows"; they are ethical, thinking, feeling, people, several notches above "homo economicus".
Years earlier, the great British sociologist Richard Titmuss had presented data (in The Gift Relationship) that blood from volunteer donors was safer, less expensive, and less subject to shortages than blood from paid donors.
In the free-enterprise US "market" theorists lobbied for legal purchase of body parts; purchased blood was 1/3rd of the supply, unlike Britain's 100% voluntary blood system. But people had begun to rebel.
J. Garrott Allen, a Chicago surgeon, demonstrated that purchased blood was 10x more likely to give fatal hepatitis to his patients than blood from volunteers. In 1972, Gov. Richard Ogilvie signed the "Illinois blood labeling act". We went all-volunteer in less than a year. The nation followed.
Today, the US blood supply is overwhelmingly volunteer. Blood from well-informed volunteers wins on all counts: it's safer, more reliable, and lower in cost.
25
Waaaaaa.....who cares, with everything else going seems a tad whiny.
21
The reason we care is because blood donation and platelet donation saves lives and it is an extremely small % of our population that donates. Do you?
6
Have you, or anyone you care about, ever need blood, Barbara?
5
Barbara F -
I was trying to think why your name seemed so familiar. Then I realized it was from reading your repeated comments complaining about the waste of journalistic resources on such trivial matters as sports & entertainment, when there is so much happening in the world that is more important.
/s
I was trying to think why your name seemed so familiar. Then I realized it was from reading your repeated comments complaining about the waste of journalistic resources on such trivial matters as sports & entertainment, when there is so much happening in the world that is more important.
/s
5
I abstained from sex for 10 years while my spouse recovered from colorectal cancer - grow up!
63
@Pat: It's rather a different situation. Mr. Franzone was kind to make this sacrifice for people he would never know. The comment "grow up" always seems less than illuminating. don't you think?
5
You have a good point. If a one-year period of abstinence is safe, then a 10-year period would be even safer. We should require at least a one-year period of abstinence from ALL blood donors.
4
If we want to reduce the risk of HIV-tainted blood transfusions to the minimum possible, only certified virgins should be allowed to donate. If, as is likely, that requirement makes meeting the demand for donated blood impractical, a minimum 5-year celibacy requirement that applies equally to all genders and sexual orientations would be reasonable.
Reserving the privilege of blood donation for individuals who demonstrate moral superiority by selflessly choosing to forgo sex in order to donate blood would also reduce the risk of contamination with numerous other pathogens besides HIV. It's the only acceptable approach if we must allow non-virgins to donate blood.
It's clear that the current arbitrary specific restrictions on homosexual males create an unacceptable danger to public health. We must demand that the institutions that set health policy ensure that people who need transfusions receive pure, safe blood from virgin donors. Or at least blood from donors whose minimum five years of celibacy demonstrate that they value altruism more than transient pleasure.
Reserving the privilege of blood donation for individuals who demonstrate moral superiority by selflessly choosing to forgo sex in order to donate blood would also reduce the risk of contamination with numerous other pathogens besides HIV. It's the only acceptable approach if we must allow non-virgins to donate blood.
It's clear that the current arbitrary specific restrictions on homosexual males create an unacceptable danger to public health. We must demand that the institutions that set health policy ensure that people who need transfusions receive pure, safe blood from virgin donors. Or at least blood from donors whose minimum five years of celibacy demonstrate that they value altruism more than transient pleasure.
1
The FDA needs a complete overhaul of all their blood donation rules, period. After 20 years of regular donation of platelets and whole blood, I was declared ineligible. The reason? I, a life-long vegetarian, had spent 6 months in the UK at the height of the BSE scare--1996. When, 18 months ago, I asked how to lift the ban, someone at the NY Blood Center told me there was no way, and mentioned the case of a person who had been an infant at that time who wasn't allowed to donate either.
30
Yes, this crossed my mind too. My family and I spend a year in the U.K. In the late 80s, and ever since, when I try to give blood, thinking that surely the limitation has been dropped, i am turned away.
13
We lived there then, also. The last time I gave blood, I was told that the ban had been lifted. It may have been in New Zealand, rather than here, as I can't remember specifically.
I have news for you: it will not kill you to abstain from sex for a year.
50
I doubt that's news as dead people seldom write opinion pieces.
2
The author is not complaining that he had to abstain for a year. He's saying there are more effective ways to prevent the donation of infected blood.
4
or even four years :(
1
Why does he feel so strongly about this? Just because they said he couldn't, then he wanted it? There's no constitutional right to give blood. I'm so confused. And I don't want his blood.
91
I am curious. Have you ever donated blood or platelets?
It would help to know that in how to craft a response to your "I don't want his blood" comment.
It would help to know that in how to craft a response to your "I don't want his blood" comment.
5
@Average Citizen: Not everything that one wants has to do with constitutional rights, for sure. As someone who got barred from donating for a very odd reason, I can empathize with Mr. Franzone. You hear of a need, you have the ability to meet the need easily, and it's painful to think that someone could be sicker or even die because of bureaucratic obstacles to meeting that need. It's called altruism.
5
"All potential donors, regardless of race, age, creed or the gender of their sexual partners, should be questioned about any risky sexual behavior."
People don't always answer honestly. This method failed dismally in the 1980's.
I have read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. The failure to protect the blood supply killed too many, including Hemophiliacs. Even though AIDS today is not a death sentence, it still requires expensive drugs to stay alive, and not without some dubious side effects.
Caution should prevail.
People don't always answer honestly. This method failed dismally in the 1980's.
I have read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. The failure to protect the blood supply killed too many, including Hemophiliacs. Even though AIDS today is not a death sentence, it still requires expensive drugs to stay alive, and not without some dubious side effects.
Caution should prevail.
90
Donor education and donor screening did NOT fail in the 1980s. Litigation over transfusion-transmitted HIV later demonstrated woeful delays and blood industry lack of faith in donor communications; blood banks were slow to give their donors good information and discreet ways to withdraw.
But research on the San Francisco blood supply showed that an extremely high percent of volunteer donors who became aware of their risks (through general media, not blood agency action) removed themselves from the donor pool BEFORE THEY WERE ASKED TO DO SO. Gay people were widely characterized as likely to give blood just to find out their HIV status; the exact opposite occurred.
But research on the San Francisco blood supply showed that an extremely high percent of volunteer donors who became aware of their risks (through general media, not blood agency action) removed themselves from the donor pool BEFORE THEY WERE ASKED TO DO SO. Gay people were widely characterized as likely to give blood just to find out their HIV status; the exact opposite occurred.
3
Exactly right. We should just allow everyone to donate blood, then test the heck out of the blood, unless the donation is for use in the person's own upcoming surgery. Throw out blood that tests positive for anything known. Humans lie. A lot. To themselves and to others, on purpose and by accident. It is stupid to implement medical rules based on what people answer on a questionnaire. Even if the tests are not complete, that is, they won't find bad elements for which there are no tests, this is no worse than we have now, and does not rely on fallible foolish humans.
2
Very logical.
I no longer give blood, finding the questions beyond insulting. My choice in sex partners is not an issue I will share since I practice safe sex. Ask straight people the same things only makes sense; in S Africa AIDS is a straight epidemic.
No, straight America: you lose again.
Keep the unscientific policies coming: you're Third World status is assured and nigh.
I no longer give blood, finding the questions beyond insulting. My choice in sex partners is not an issue I will share since I practice safe sex. Ask straight people the same things only makes sense; in S Africa AIDS is a straight epidemic.
No, straight America: you lose again.
Keep the unscientific policies coming: you're Third World status is assured and nigh.
21
What makes you think straight people aren't asked the same questions?
13
Well, Darcey, if you are actually qualified to give blood, I'm sure blood recipients are just pleased as punch that you are taking a stand against "questions beyond insulting."
There are 60+ questions, and some are borderline irrelevant, and others eminently sensical. But you are such a special snowflake that you can't even bear to be asked them?
Having 225+ platelet donations, it takes me about three minutes to answer those questions (I no more have Chagas' disease or babeosiasis than I did any other time I've donated). Then the medical clearance takes another five minutes, with any potential deferring question followed up on. Finally, I am hooked up to a separator from 65-90 minutes. And you are in high dudgeon about the questions? Get over yourself, sir. And the Times thought this was gold ribbon worthy? Yikes!
There are 60+ questions, and some are borderline irrelevant, and others eminently sensical. But you are such a special snowflake that you can't even bear to be asked them?
Having 225+ platelet donations, it takes me about three minutes to answer those questions (I no more have Chagas' disease or babeosiasis than I did any other time I've donated). Then the medical clearance takes another five minutes, with any potential deferring question followed up on. Finally, I am hooked up to a separator from 65-90 minutes. And you are in high dudgeon about the questions? Get over yourself, sir. And the Times thought this was gold ribbon worthy? Yikes!
6
Agreed. This policy doesn't make sense. An even more nonsensical ban is against "an individual who has ever exchanged sex for money or drugs." If a young person engages in sex work just once, he or she can be banned from donating blood 10, 20, 30 years later. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/Questionsab...
7
That's because there are sexually transmitted diseases that stay in the body forever, like HIV and hepatitis C.
And it's not always possible to test for those diseases. There was a special issue of Science magazine on the microbiome. When scientists do DNA testing in the human body, they find proof of hundreds or thousands of microbes that they couldn't identify and couldn't culture.
Hepatitis C virus was only discovered in 1989. By that time the U.S. had an epidemic of hepatitis C transmitted by blood transfusions. If you've been exposed to hepatitis C you can't give blood either.
There are about 7 million blood donors in the U.S. If one of them with hepatitis C (or an as-yet undiscovered virus) slips through, he can kill somebody.
I wouldn't want to receive blood from a donor who has exchanged sex for money. Would you?
And it's not always possible to test for those diseases. There was a special issue of Science magazine on the microbiome. When scientists do DNA testing in the human body, they find proof of hundreds or thousands of microbes that they couldn't identify and couldn't culture.
Hepatitis C virus was only discovered in 1989. By that time the U.S. had an epidemic of hepatitis C transmitted by blood transfusions. If you've been exposed to hepatitis C you can't give blood either.
There are about 7 million blood donors in the U.S. If one of them with hepatitis C (or an as-yet undiscovered virus) slips through, he can kill somebody.
I wouldn't want to receive blood from a donor who has exchanged sex for money. Would you?
20
This is intended for Richie Rich Luettgen: Doesn't that prohibition disqualify both Trump and his three wives and their "transactional" marriages?
6
“I abstained from sex for a year to donate blood”. Gay or straight notwithstanding (or any permutation thereof), this could be taking “sharing” a mite beyond the bounds of compelled-gagging. Shades of forcing us to watch videos of Trump “cavorting” in Russian hotels, Batman!
The author is complaining about what amounts to bureaucratic caution. Back in the 1980s, there were people who contracted AIDS in America from infected blood transfusions – and who DIED (rather badly) as a result. You don’t want bureaucrats to have this kind of influence over normal lives, consider stripping them of much of their power (AND accountability) – heck, I’d vote for THAT. But until we do, the first people whose careers and lives will be destroyed if yet ANOTHER incidence of such transmission is seen are the bureaucratic agents who perpetuate old laws in the fear of getting a repeal wrong.
Besides, this practice of taking blood from living human beings to give to others is as absurdly antiquated as the metal instruments dentists still stick in mouths to do their disturbing work. Hopefully, with Trump as president, our start-up medical tech sector will get an infusion just by reducing the taxes and regulation on it, sufficient to FINALLY get commercial cloning of blood off the ground.
The only problem with that is that is that we’d have to invent something else for homeless indigents to sell to buy that pint of Sneaky Pete. Maybe distillations of lost dreams?
The author is complaining about what amounts to bureaucratic caution. Back in the 1980s, there were people who contracted AIDS in America from infected blood transfusions – and who DIED (rather badly) as a result. You don’t want bureaucrats to have this kind of influence over normal lives, consider stripping them of much of their power (AND accountability) – heck, I’d vote for THAT. But until we do, the first people whose careers and lives will be destroyed if yet ANOTHER incidence of such transmission is seen are the bureaucratic agents who perpetuate old laws in the fear of getting a repeal wrong.
Besides, this practice of taking blood from living human beings to give to others is as absurdly antiquated as the metal instruments dentists still stick in mouths to do their disturbing work. Hopefully, with Trump as president, our start-up medical tech sector will get an infusion just by reducing the taxes and regulation on it, sufficient to FINALLY get commercial cloning of blood off the ground.
The only problem with that is that is that we’d have to invent something else for homeless indigents to sell to buy that pint of Sneaky Pete. Maybe distillations of lost dreams?
11
Yes, responders, humor, to be effective, MUST be cruel.
6
Actually, It must be humorous.
32
Even if your walk on water, miracle-working reality show president-elect reduces taxes (cough) and eliminates regulations...that's an awfully big leap for you to take.
16