Blood Drive Question

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 1:42 AM GMT
    I was recently at a blood drive and one of the notes on the little rules and guidelines they make you read irked me. Basically, it said "Do not donate if you are male and had sexual contact with another male, even once". Really, the whole vibe made it sound derogatory towards gay men. My main concern is why does this rule exist? Is it really just a health precaution? Or is it meant to scare potential donors from having gay sex?
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Mar 21, 2013 2:29 AM GMT
    they are afraid of spreading angelic blood ... It would destroy the world as they know it and bring about the end times ... they are afraid of judgment day

    lucifer-an-angel-of-music.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 2:32 AM GMT
    Absolutely.. This is a devious ploy hatched by the KGB in 1942 to prevent sodomy in blood donors.

    ..Can't believe you didn't know that?? icon_confused.gif

    ..October 4th 1942 blood transfusions were at an all time high and the K.G.B. had to come up with a clever way to prevent sodomy.!!

    ..As a gay man i'm sure you face the taunting question.. Do I let him bang me??..because if i do ..i'll never be able to give blood!!

    ..My words of warning to you... Stay a virgin or get a girlfriend !!
    ..You'll never know who might need your blood.

    ..I'm still in shock you didn't know any of this.. omg !! icon_eek.gif
  • PolaroidSwing...

    Posts: 1131

    Mar 21, 2013 2:33 AM GMT
    tpe42 saidI was recently at a blood drive and one of the notes on the little rules and guidelines they make you read irked me. Basically, it said "Do not donate if you are male and had sexual contact with another male, even once". Really, the whole vibe made it sound derogatory towards gay men. My main concern is why does this rule exist? Is it really just a health precaution? Or is it meant to scare potential donors from having gay sex?


    The reason they've given for the restriction is the higher incidence of HIV infection among MSM in the US.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 21, 2013 2:35 AM GMT
    PolaroidSwinger said
    tpe42 saidI was recently at a blood drive and one of the notes on the little rules and guidelines they make you read irked me. Basically, it said "Do not donate if you are male and had sexual contact with another male, even once". Really, the whole vibe made it sound derogatory towards gay men. My main concern is why does this rule exist? Is it really just a health precaution? Or is it meant to scare potential donors from having gay sex?


    The reason they've given for the restriction is the higher incidence of HIV infection among MSM in the US.


    It's also an old law that no longer applies...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 2:39 AM GMT
    It means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.

    Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.

    BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.
  • PolaroidSwing...

    Posts: 1131

    Mar 21, 2013 2:41 AM GMT
    Medjai saidIt's also an old law that no longer applies...


    Agreed, but technically that's the "reason".
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 21, 2013 2:42 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.

    Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.

    BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.


    Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 2:43 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.

    Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.

    BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.


    Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.
    Citation?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 8:37 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Medjai said
    paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.

    Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.

    BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.


    Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.
    Citation?


    I think he speaks the truth. I believe they do test all donated blood these days to ensure it's safe. At least that's the case in the US. They used to not test it, until hemophiliacs who received transfusions became infected with HIV prompted changes in protocol.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 2:29 AM GMT
    I find the blood donation questions in the US very discriminatory. And yes, they test it for a wide variety of things (why they take like 6 vials before you actually donate).
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 22, 2013 2:56 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    paulflexes saidIt means that they are too lazy to test the blood of donors for deadly diseases.

    Keep this in mind if you're ever in a situation where YOU need blood.

    BTW, I've needed blood. Fortunately it wasn't tainted.


    Uh, no... All blood is tested regardless of risk.


    it can take up to three months for a person who's infected with HIV before they'll test positive,

    what if they give blood in that period of time and their blood tests negative too, even though it's infected?

  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 22, 2013 3:36 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidCitation?


    Canadian blood services. It's on their main page.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 22, 2013 3:41 PM GMT
    thadjock saidit can take up to three months for a person who's infected with HIV before they'll test positive,

    what if they give blood in that period of time and their blood tests negative too, even though it's infected?



    Blood services doesn't test for antibodies. They test for the virus directly, using the NAT testing method.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 22, 2013 6:30 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    thadjock saidit can take up to three months for a person who's infected with HIV before they'll test positive,

    what if they give blood in that period of time and their blood tests negative too, even though it's infected?



    Blood services doesn't test for antibodies. They test for the virus directly, using the NAT testing method.


    so why don't they test a person for HIV by taking their blood and checking for the virus directly?

    wouldn't that eliminate the limbo period where guys test neg and they're really not? and prevent potential spread of the virus?
  • PolaroidSwing...

    Posts: 1131

    Mar 22, 2013 7:06 PM GMT
    thadjock saidso why don't they test a person for HIV by taking their blood and checking for the virus directly?

    wouldn't that eliminate the limbo period where guys test neg and they're really not? and prevent potential spread of the virus?


    Even RNA tests still have a window period of 9-11 days, and false positives are not uncommon; sometimes even false negatives (especially when running batched samples).

    NAT tests are not a reliable substitute for antibody tests, and the latter is required to double-check any positive results that are delivered by NAT anyway.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 22, 2013 7:27 PM GMT
    PolaroidSwinger said
    Even RNA tests still have a window period of 9-11 days, and false positives are not uncommon; sometimes even false negatives (especially when running batched samples).

    NAT tests are not a reliable substitute for antibody tests, and the latter is required to double-check any positive results that are delivered by NAT anyway.


    so the donor blood supply is screened using a test that doesn't conclusively eliminate all infected donors or blood?

    the science is whatever the cost/benefit analysis determines to be acceptable risk?