Petition to give gay men the right to give blood

  • Celeborn789

    Posts: 4

    Aug 13, 2013 12:53 AM GMT
    Hello everyone, I have started a petition to change the current lifetime ban on MSM (men who have sex with other men). I don't know if any of you care, I hope some of you do, but if you sign this, and we can get it out there, perhaps we can change this policy. Link to the petition is given below:

    http://wh.gov.lgjgn
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 2:48 AM GMT
    Celeborn789 saidHello everyone, I have started a petition to change the current lifetime ban on MSM (men who have sex with other men). I don't know if any of you care, I hope some of you do, but if you sign this, and we can get it out there, perhaps we can change this policy. Link to the petition is given below:

    http://wh.gov.lgjgn


    Man, this is not about rights of our community, this is about safety. Tests can recognize ze HIV after about 10 days since transfer. If that person will give the blood during that period, the virus can be transfered unrecognized. Let's face objective facts - most of HIV positive patients in western countries are gay men. That's the fact and politically correct attitude will change nothing about it. As a group, we are a risk.. But every person, no matter if gay or straight, which confirm anal sex is automatically rejected from donating blood. They even take the blood, but they never use that. It's a safety protocol. You're young, You can't remember the panic on the end of 80's when there were several infections due transfer of blood. Most famous victim is Isaac Asimov, that writer. He got infected blood during surgery. HIV isn't choosing it's victims by character. Rejecting gay men from giving blood has simply statistical reason. The level of danger is simply too high...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 2:52 AM GMT
    Arcturian said
    Man, this is not about rights of our community, this is about safety. Tests can recognize ze HIV after about 10 days since transfer. Let's face objective facts - most of HIV positive patients in western countries are gay men. That's the fact and politically correct attitude will change nothing about it. As a group, we are a risk.. But every person, no matter if gay or straight, which confirm anal sex is automatically rejected from donating blood. They even take the blood, but they never use that. It's a safety protocol. You're young, You can't remember the panic on the end of 80's when there were several infections due transfer of blood. Most famous victim is Isaac Asimov, that writer. He got infected blood during surgery. HIV isn't choosing it's victims by character. Rejecting gay men from giving blood has simply statistical reason. The level of danger is simply too high...

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

    Aug 13, 2013 2:57 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Arcturian said
    Man, this is not about rights of our community, this is about safety. Tests can recognize ze HIV after about 10 days since transfer. Let's face objective facts - most of HIV positive patients in western countries are gay men. That's the fact and politically correct attitude will change nothing about it. As a group, we are a risk.. But every person, no matter if gay or straight, which confirm anal sex is automatically rejected from donating blood. They even take the blood, but they never use that. It's a safety protocol. You're young, You can't remember the panic on the end of 80's when there were several infections due transfer of blood. Most famous victim is Isaac Asimov, that writer. He got infected blood during surgery. HIV isn't choosing it's victims by character. Rejecting gay men from giving blood has simply statistical reason. The level of danger is simply too high...

    All false.


    In what? I wrote patients in western countries. Yes, Asia and Africa has much higher level of infected women, but not US and not Europe. BTW, stand art tests are accepted as valid after 8 weeks since risky sex. Tests used for given blood are more precise, but other still is a gap. There still is a risk. May be You shall consult this with some hematologist or better specialist on infections...
  • Celeborn789

    Posts: 4

    Aug 13, 2013 3:06 AM GMT
    I recognize that gay men still have the highest risk factors for HIV and similar diseases than other groups, at least here in the US. However, with the tests which are currently available, which are applied to every single sample of blood before it is considered usable, the risk is very low. In fact several reputable boards, (e.g. the American Osteopathic Association and the American Medical Association) have called for it be altered. See the links below. Back in the 80's there was a legitimate case for it as we didn't have the necessary tests to screen infected blood. But we do now.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/american-medical-association-opposes-fda-ban-gay-men/storynew?id=19436366

    http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/news-and-publications/media-center/2013-news-releases/Pages/HOD-2013-increase-number-of-eligible-blood-donors.aspx
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 3:06 AM GMT
    Arcturian said
    ART_DECO said
    Arcturian said
    Man, this is not about rights of our community, this is about safety. Tests can recognize ze HIV after about 10 days since transfer. Let's face objective facts - most of HIV positive patients in western countries are gay men. That's the fact and politically correct attitude will change nothing about it. As a group, we are a risk.. But every person, no matter if gay or straight, which confirm anal sex is automatically rejected from donating blood. They even take the blood, but they never use that. It's a safety protocol. You're young, You can't remember the panic on the end of 80's when there were several infections due transfer of blood. Most famous victim is Isaac Asimov, that writer. He got infected blood during surgery. HIV isn't choosing it's victims by character. Rejecting gay men from giving blood has simply statistical reason. The level of danger is simply too high...

    All false.

    In what? I wrote patients in western countries. Yes, Asia and Africa has much higher level of infected women, but not US and not Europe. BTW, stand art tests are accepted as valid after 8 weeks since risky sex. Tests used for given blood are more precise, but other still is a gap. There still is a risk. May be You shall consult this with some hematologist or better specialist on infections...

    I work with the HIV/AIDS community. All donated blood in the US is screened for HIV before being used. If it weren't, and the screening wasn't effective, the entire blood supply would be unsafe.

    Because many people don't know they have HIV, but donate blood. And others lie about having HIV when they donate. If there wasn't an effective blood screening process the donation system would collapse.

    All the major US health organizations recommend allowing gay men to donate blood. The obstacle is purely political, not medical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 3:08 AM GMT
    There is no "ban" on gay men giving blood. Go to a blood bank and give blood. See how easy it is.

    And your phrase "give gay men the right to" is repugnant. Please go educate yourself on the source and nature of rights (per the Enlightenment and the Founders of the USA).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 3:09 AM GMT
    If someone is hooking up with a different guy every week then I can understand not taking their blood. But I'm pretty sure that policy applies to straight people to. What bothers me is that if you've been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years you can't give blood either. It's absurd. Oh well, if I ever do want to give blood I can always just lie.
  • Celeborn789

    Posts: 4

    Aug 13, 2013 3:15 AM GMT
    Also just noted, accidentally entered the wrong url. This url should connect to the actual petition.

    http://wh.gov/lgjgn
  • Celeborn789

    Posts: 4

    Aug 13, 2013 3:18 AM GMT
    WJohnP saidThere is no "ban" on gay men giving blood. Go to a blood bank and give blood. See how easy it is.

    And your phrase "give gay men the right to" is repugnant. Please go educate yourself on the source and nature of rights (per the Enlightenment and the Founders of the USA).


    There is indeed still a ban on it. Simple search can find you plenty of news articles as recent as July on the matter.

    On the topic of my word choice. I apologize if I offended you, that headline was the best I could come up with at the time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 3:26 AM GMT
    WJohnP saidThere is no "ban" on gay men giving blood. Go to a blood bank and give blood. See how easy it is.

    And your phrase "give gay men the right to" is repugnant. Please go educate yourself on the source and nature of rights (per the Enlightenment and the Founders of the USA).

    I beg your pardon??? That's a total lie in the US.

    I went to donate blood right after 9/11/2001. In answering the mandatory screening questions I honestly said I was gay.

    I was told my Social Security Number was being entered into a national data base, that would bar me from donating blood for the rest of my life. That also is done to other gay men, and is the subject of a national effort to reverse that policy.

    You are lying, and about a subject that is in the news this very moment.

    http://roslindale.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/sen-warren-wants-to-know-why-gay-men-cant-donate-blood

    "After receiving a letter from a Roslindale [Mass] resident who was not allowed to give blood after the Boston Marathon bombings because of his sexual orientation, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has asked for a review of the federal policy."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 4:11 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Celeborn789 said[/cite]Hello everyone, I have started a petition to change the current lifetime ban on MSM (men who have sex with other men). I don't know if any of you care, I hope some of you do, but if you sign this, and we can get it out there, perhaps we can change this policy. Link to the petition is given below:

    http://wh.gov.lgjgn[/quo



    I guess politically correct liberals have never worked for a living since that don't get that the almighty buck is the basis of most "political decisions" .

    To quote the Red Cross, "The extra funds will be used to help pay off roughly $300 million in debt the organization has accrued in implementing blood safety measures" . Blood has doubled in cost since the safety measures have been implemented . To test blood and then toss it out because it is Poz is not economically viable. Political correctness is going to sink Obamacare as well because liberals have ideas that they childishly believe Daddy will perpetually pay for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 4:52 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said[quote][cite]Celeborn789 said[/cite]Hello everyone, I have started a petition to change the current lifetime ban on MSM (men who have sex with other men). I don't know if any of you care, I hope some of you do, but if you sign this, and we can get it out there, perhaps we can change this policy. Link to the petition is given below:

    http://wh.gov.lgjgn[/quo



    I guess politically correct liberals have never worked for a living since that don't get that the almighty buck is the basis of most "political decisions" .

    To quote the Red Cross, "The extra funds will be used to help pay off roughly $300 million in debt the organization has accrued in implementing blood safety measures" . Blood has doubled in cost since the safety measures have been implemented . To test blood and then toss it out because it is Poz is not economically viable. Political correctness is going to sink Obamacare as well because liberals have ideas that they childishly believe Daddy will perpetually pay for.


    Dear Alpha13, before you swallow your foot right up to the ankle, I suggest you read the following:

    http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/what-happens-donated-blood/blood-testing

    Here:
    "The American Red Cross performs laboratory tests for multiple infectious disease markers on every unit of donated blood. Tests are upgraded or replaced with more sensitive technologies as these become available. These tests include:

    Chagas disease (T. cruzi)
    Hepatitis B virus (HBV)
    Hepatitis C virus (HCV 3.0)
    Human Immunodeficiency viruses, Types 1 and 2 (HIV 1,2)
    Human T-Lymphotropic virus (HTLV-I/II)
    Syphilis (Treponema pallidum)
    West Nile virus (WNV)"

    Honestly, sometimes I think that you think we all live in a vaccuum. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Aug 14, 2013 3:15 AM GMT
    Since everyone should be covered under Obamaacare, why not just defer any testing of donated blood and necessary counseling to the insurance of the person donating. Regardless of orientation.

    Some other facts if you are on Propecia or Avodart you cannot donate blood. AT ALL.

    They cause a known birth defect.

    If you ever took exogenous growth hormone that gives you a lifelong ban as well.

    Between the Propecia , Avodart and Growth hormone most of my zip code would not be able to donate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2013 3:35 AM GMT
    ^ That there is a right wing troll
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Aug 14, 2013 3:41 AM GMT
    Philibuster said^ That there is a right wing troll


    and a very simple simon are you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2013 3:49 AM GMT
    Beats being banned from receiving blood.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2013 3:52 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Philibuster said^ That there is a right wing troll


    and a very simple simon are you.

    Yeah, I'm not the brightest tool on the block. icon_lol.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Aug 14, 2013 3:56 AM GMT
    Philibuster said
    musclmed said
    Philibuster said^ That there is a right wing troll


    and a very simple simon are you.

    Yeah, I'm not the brightest tool on the block. icon_lol.gif


    Considering you know very little about my politics you very confident in using "right wing troll" to describe me.

    Im sorry you missed the sarcasm and nuance of what I wrote above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2013 4:02 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Philibuster said
    musclmed said
    Philibuster said^ That there is a right wing troll


    and a very simple simon are you.

    Yeah, I'm not the brightest tool on the block. icon_lol.gif


    Considering you know very little about my politics you very confident in using "right wing troll" to describe me.

    Im sorry you missed the sarcasm and nuance of what I wrote above.

    Ya got me! icon_lol.gif
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Aug 16, 2013 4:41 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Arcturian said
    ART_DECO said
    Arcturian said
    Man, this is not about rights of our community, this is about safety. Tests can recognize ze HIV after about 10 days since transfer. Let's face objective facts - most of HIV positive patients in western countries are gay men. That's the fact and politically correct attitude will change nothing about it. As a group, we are a risk.. But every person, no matter if gay or straight, which confirm anal sex is automatically rejected from donating blood. They even take the blood, but they never use that. It's a safety protocol. You're young, You can't remember the panic on the end of 80's when there were several infections due transfer of blood. Most famous victim is Isaac Asimov, that writer. He got infected blood during surgery. HIV isn't choosing it's victims by character. Rejecting gay men from giving blood has simply statistical reason. The level of danger is simply too high...

    All false.

    In what? I wrote patients in western countries. Yes, Asia and Africa has much higher level of infected women, but not US and not Europe. BTW, stand art tests are accepted as valid after 8 weeks since risky sex. Tests used for given blood are more precise, but other still is a gap. There still is a risk. May be You shall consult this with some hematologist or better specialist on infections...

    I work with the HIV/AIDS community. All donated blood in the US is screened for HIV before being used. If it weren't, and the screening wasn't effective, the entire blood supply would be unsafe.

    Because many people don't know they have HIV, but donate blood. And others lie about having HIV when they donate. If there wasn't an effective blood screening process the donation system would collapse.

    All the major US health organizations recommend allowing gay men to donate blood. The obstacle is purely political, not medical.


    Both Art_Deco and Acturian raise true points. All blood regardless of the donor is screened for HIV/AIDS so a higher frequency of that particular virus is irrelevant. At the margin it wouldn't cost them a dime extra. However, consider the size of the gay community (which predominately makes up the MSM community). If MSM are equally promiscuous as completely heterosexual men (which most surveys seem to suggest), the degrees of separation between you and someone infected with an STD/STI for which there is no easily scalable test are far, far fewer, thereby dramatically increasing the probability of contracting it. It then follows that a higher proportion of blood taken from a random sampling of MSMvis much more likely to contain possible blood borne illnesses for which tests cannot be scaled in a cost effective way.

    If MSM were to regularly donate blood in proportion to non MSM donors, it might increase the total blood supply by about 10% at best. If 3%-5% of non MSM blood donations contain viruses mentioned above and 10% or so MSM donations do, then realistically the statistical risk of allowing MSM donations is an increase in the *contaminated* blood supply of 20%-33% in exchange for a 9% increase in safe blood. Again, this isn't HIV/AIDS, but other blood borne viruses. Once screening for those viruses becomes cost effective and scalable, then those numbers will dramatically improve. (I'm not sure if those are the absolute values, but the proportions seem realistic, which is where the 20-33% comes from).

    Just to clarify, I'm making the point that it seems like much less about discrimination towards gay men, and more of a cost vs. benefit issue (at this point). Also, by scalable I mean that it is efficient to test every donation. At present, whatever the actual % of donations that contain these viruses is within a tolerable range without the need to screen every sample, but pushing that % higher would require testing every donation.

    A simple solution is to require MSM to provide documentation of complete testing at an approved facility within an appropriate time frame. It removes the need to employ inefficient, large scale testing. I have been tested recently at a clinic with squeaky clean results and would love to be able to donate blood and should be able to if I can prove it.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Aug 16, 2013 4:50 AM GMT
    maxferguson said
    Both Art_Deco and Acturian raise true points. All blood regardless of the donor is screened for HIV/AIDS so a higher frequency of that particular virus is irrelevant.


    Hmmm. How do they -- or do they? -- account for people who donate who are HIV undetectable? Are they just relying on those folks to be honest about their status and not donate?

    Things that make ya go hmmm...
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Aug 16, 2013 4:54 AM GMT
    If someone is HIV undetectable (and assuming they are not one of the less likely cases where they have fought it off the point where it is), then honesty couldn't play a role. Can someone be affirmatively honest about something they don't know?

    Another point I missed in my previous post is that it would be very difficult to ascertain what percentage of both populations actually carry such infections because we don't know what percentage of the population has them and hasn't been tested. This makes it hard to estimate the actual level of contaminated blood before taking MSM donations into account and after.

    Ultimately, if it is indeed a cost/benefit problem (and I'm simply trying to explain how it *could* be, not asserting that it is), then the costs can be greatly reduced/eliminated by allowing MSM with complete, clean and recent testing documentation to donate.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Aug 17, 2013 1:44 AM GMT
    maxferguson saidIf someone is HIV undetectable (and assuming they are not one of the less likely cases where they have fought it off the point where it is), then honesty couldn't play a role.


    You can be HIV+, not know it, and have a low level of the virus in your blood relative to someone who is HIV+ and very sick. But you cannot be HIV+ and reach undetectable levels without complying or having complied at some point with medication.

    So, I'm interested to know if someone who was undetectable donated blood, is there any way at all for the service taking the donation to find out? I'm presuming, perhaps, the virus would start multiplying again once it's out of the hosts body so perhaps in such cases the blood shows up as unsuitable for transfusion after the donation date.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Aug 17, 2013 2:43 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    maxferguson said
    Both Art_Deco and Acturian raise true points. All blood regardless of the donor is screened for HIV/AIDS so a higher frequency of that particular virus is irrelevant.


    Hmmm. How do they -- or do they? -- account for people who donate who are HIV undetectable? Are they just relying on those folks to be honest about their status and not donate?

    Things that make ya go hmmm...


    Undetectable is just based on the type of RNA assay. Most are considered undetectable under 40 copies/ml. There are more expensive assays that will dected under that limit.
    ( but that is not necessary)

    Assuming someone is being treated for HIV and is undetectable for the VIRUS, they will still remain HIV+ for life. Meaning they will have the HIV virus antibody. Simply they still will be positive to the original inexpensive test we have always done. (If you take them to the free testing truck on Santa Monica blvd, they will have test positive, even if they are undetectable )

    No need to move onto a RNA assay. Being undetectable is irrelevant to the bodies HIV antibody response which persists for life.

    So you hope they are being honest and not wasteful in throwing away a unit of of their own blood. It will be discarded if they are HIV+.

    Another scenario is the acute infection. In that case the RNA test , and p24 antigen are helpful. Those are not done first, they are done in the case the HIV antibody ( western blot ) is equivocal.