Accepting Blood

[Spherical Time]

Would you accept blood from a bank that took donations from gay people?

Currently the guidelines from the Red Cross restrict sexually active gay men from giving blood for fear of AIDS/HIV, even if their sexual contact was low risk or they've been tested and confirmed negative since their last sexual contact or have been in monogamous relationships.

Although heterosexuals can also carry these diseases, they are in no way restricted from giving blood. In fact, homosexuals are currently in the same category of restriction as prostitutes.

Further, all blood in the U.S. is now screened for these diseases anyway. There is no evidence that allowing homosexuals to donate blood would increase the risk of contracting AIDS or HIV through donations.

The main Red Cross website has a counter in the corner that records how many people need blood since you've arrived at the website, and it goes up exceedingly quickly. Yet restricting monogamous homosexuals from the pool would seem to limit the source of donations.

 

[Stuco]

Would you accept blood from a bank that took donations from gay people?

Currently the guidelines from the Red Cross restrict sexually active gay men from giving blood for fear of AIDS/HIV, even if their sexual contact was low risk or they've been tested and confirmed negative since their last sexual contact or have been in monogamous relationships.

Although heterosexuals can also carry these diseases, they are in no way restricted from giving blood. In fact, homosexuals are currently in the same category of restriction as prostitutes.

Further, all blood in the U.S. is now screened for these diseases anyway. There is no evidence that allowing homosexuals to donate blood would increase the risk of contracting AIDS or HIV through donations.

The main Red Cross website has a counter in the corner that records how many people need blood since you've arrived at the website, and it goes up exceedingly quickly. Yet restricting monogamous homosexuals from the pool would seem to limit the source of donations.

Well Im probbobly not going to know anyway so it really dosent matter does it.

 

[bethinker]

Blood is something totally biological. If someone accepts blood from a straight, then there is completely no logical reason of rejecting blood from a homo.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

As far as I am concerned, I see nothing wrong in blood donations from Homosexuals.
Blood is screened anyway, so why should the risk be greater from the homosexual community ?
Hetrosexuals can catch sexual diseases just the same as homosexuals.

 

[butterfoot]

From what I understand the blood is screened for diseases before it can be given to patients. To me that would be safe and cause no reason for concern in recieving another Human beings blood.


-cw

 

[benjdm]

While it is absolutely true anyone can have AIDS, the disease affects male homosexuals disproportionately. Losing 5% (or whatever % of the population is homosexual and male) as potential blood donors might be the least costly option. What % of their blood donors might not donate if they were irrationally worried about contracting AIDS from a dirty needle or something ? Would blood users (I mean hospitals and such, not the individual patients) require more testing if the Red Cross changed this policy ? It does not seem so simple to me.

 

[tocis]

Would you accept blood from a bank that took donations from gay people?

Definitely yes.

First, if I'm in a situation to need blood, then it should be my least concern whether the person who once donated that blood belongs to any group I dislike. Darn it, if i need blood, then in all likelihood my very life is at stake - if I can't live with the thought of "gay blood" running through my veins, I can deal with that myself after I'm up and well again!
Second, even if I should dislike the thought of "gay blood" being part of my system... first, blood cells don't live forever, they are "recycled" after some weeks if memory serves, second, they don't leave any genetic trace that could be inherited by the children I might sire one day. So why should I bother?

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

As far as I am concerned, I see nothing wrong in blood donations from Homosexuals.
Blood is screened anyway, so why should the risk be greater from the homosexual community ?
Hetrosexuals can catch sexual diseases just the same as homosexuals.

I think that the rationale behind not accepting blood from homosexual donors is that blood is screened by looking for antibodies to the HIV virus. It takes a period of time for one to develop these antibodies. If I remember correctly, a few weeks.

As a result, someone may be infected and donate blood shortlyt thereafter. The blood would have HIV, but not be screened from the blood supply because it does not have antibodies.

Given the choice, my preference would be to accept blood from blood banks that receive their donations only from people who have been in a monogamous relationship (ie, the low risk population, regardless of sexual preference) for a period of time.

 

[""]

I don't mind that others would accept blood from a homosexual, but I would not accept blood from a blood bank that catered to homosexuals. Not because they're gay, or because of my Christianity, or because I think it's a sin, or any other reason along that line. Strictly because the chances of that blood being tainted with disease are much higher. Then again, if I have to have surgery, I plan on having my own blood given to me. You can store your own blood for surgical procedures. If that wasn't possible then I'd take whatever a reputable blood bank had to offer.

 

[MoonlessNight]

As the Red Cross's only criteria for someone being gay and sexually active is whether that person says that they are, I have to wonder how much this is helping. Certainly it will keep good and honest people from giving blood, but those are the exact same type of people who would check to see if they had aids/hiv before giving blood.

By the reasons given for preventing gay people from giving blood, I imagine we could also restrict blood based on income level.

 

[Spherical Time]

I think my overall point with this poll was to illustrate that they're asking the wrong questions. A promiscuous straight black female has a better chance of being infected with HIV than a monogamous gay Asian male.

For instance, you'll notice that men that sleep with prostitutes have only a waiting period before they can donate blood. Why not with homosexuals?

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

I think my overall point with this poll was to illustrate that they're asking the wrong questions. A promiscuous straight black female has a better chance of being infected with HIV than a monogamous gay Asian male.

For instance, you'll notice that men that sleep with prostitutes have only a waiting period before they can donate blood. Why not with homosexuals?

I see. Yes, I agree with you completely. The system used to screen donors is clumsy, arbitrary, and probably not terribly effective in screening out all high-risk individuals.

 

[tocis]

Of course, all that doesn't make much of a difference if all blood donations are routinely checked for potentially harmful infections anyway. As far as I know, the red cross here in Germany does exactly that. Only those who already know that they have HIV running around in their veins are strictly prohibited from donating... other than that, no questions about sexual activity and/or orientation are asked.

 

[hernyaccent]

I don't mind that others would accept blood from a homosexual, but I would not accept blood from a blood bank that catered to homosexuals. Not because they're gay, or because of my Christianity, or because I think it's a sin, or any other reason along that line. Strictly because the chances of that blood being tainted with disease are much higher. Then again, if I have to have surgery, I plan on having my own blood given to me. You can store your own blood for surgical procedures. If that wasn't possible then I'd take whatever a reputable blood bank had to offer.

You risk is less with lesbians then heterosexuals. Would you accept that? Just curious.

 

[Arkanin]

I find this strangely unsettling because, 1) I am aware that HIV takes several months to detect after reception of the virus, as it is done by cell count, 2) Gay people are more statistically likely to spread and have HIV, and 3) you can obviously get HIV from blood.

It's a virtual fact that you're more likely to get HIV from a blood bank that takes blood from gay people than one that doesn't, all else held constant. I certainly don't find this encouraging.

 

[hernyaccent]

I find this strangely unsettling because, 1) I am aware that HIV takes several months to detect after reception of the virus, as it is done by cell count, 2) Gay people are more statistically likely to spread and have HIV, and 3) you can obviously get HIV from blood.

It's a virtual fact that you're more likely to get HIV from a blood bank that takes blood from gay people than one that doesn't, all else held constant. I certainly don't find this encouraging.

The same can be said of current statisics of heterosexual black women to heterosexual white women considering 40% aids were blacks & black women are the largest group contracting aids.

"During 2000–2003, HIV/AIDS rates for African American females were 19 times the rates for white females and 5 times the rates for Hispanic females; they also exceeded the rates for males of all races/ethnicities other than African Americans. Rates for African American males were 7 times those for white males and 3 times those for Hispanic males "
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/afam.htm

 

[Arkanin]

The same can be said of current statisics of heterosexual black women to heterosexual white women considering 40% aids were blacks & black women are the largest group contracting aids.

Yeah. It seems like the most reasonable solution is to do what insurance companies do: risk analysis. We find risk factors we add to this person before we survey him or her based on the gender, sexual orientation, age, health, race of the person, and their medical history. Then, we survey them and hope they answer honestly. We simply add the risk factors up and then find a point where the risk factor is such that adding one unit of blood to the stockpile will be as likely to save a life as it would cause HIV (this is a bit flawed, as it treats HIV as tantamount to AIDS and as bad as instant death at that).

The end result would be us stockpiling just a little more than enough blood and tiering it in terms of use, using the highest-risk blood last. Some people might find this offensive, but it's nothing insurance companies don't do, and this optimizes the number of lives statistically saved by blood, and that's a serious matter.

The red cross ought to have the sense to calculate such HIV risk factors and put a number on every blood that marks its risk; homosexuality certainly ought to statistically affect the equation, but it's very doubtful the added risk would be so great homosexuals would be mostly or entirely excluded. However, needle users or those who have unprotected sex with multiple men (anal or vaginal) are probably high enough risk factors to be immediately thrown out.

 

[Arkanin]

Anyway, after thinking about this, I voted yes, without reservation. I DO think that the blood banks ought to deal with their blood in terms of risk analysis, though, because it would save a lot of lives.

 

[""]

You risk is less with lesbians then heterosexuals. Would you accept that? Just curious

Yes I would probably accept blood from a lesbian, unless she said she were not completely lesbian... ie: bisexual. If she were bisexual, and promiscuous, then I probably wouldn't accept blood from her.

My point in refusing blood from a bank that caters to homosexuals (primarily gay men) is that, as I said, they are at higher risk of infection for HIV and also Hepatitis C. I also would not accept blood from a very promiscuous hetero male or female, or an iv drug user. It's just common sense.

 

[Charlie V]

While it is absolutely true anyone can have AIDS, the disease affects male homosexuals disproportionately.

That depends on the country--in some parts of the world heterosexual transmission is the leading mode.

Heterosexual transmission is one of the fastest-rising modes of transmission, and has been for some time.

Losing 5% (or whatever % of the population is homosexual and male) as potential blood donors might be the least costly option.

All blood is tested. There is no cost difference between running tests on blood from a heterosexual and blood from a homosexual.

What % of their blood donors might not donate if they were irrationally worried about contracting AIDS from a dirty needle or something ?

Probably about zero%. I don't think anybody is left that doesn't know that they don't re-use needles. If I thought they re-used needes, I wouldn't care if they only accepted blood from celebate nuns who lived like the "bubble boy." I wouldn't let them touch me with their needes.

Would blood users (I mean hospitals and such, not the individual patients) require more testing if the Red Cross changed this policy ? It does not seem so simple to me.

What do you mean "more testing"? They already do the exact amount of testing needed

Charlie

Edit: I did some research:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq15.htm

How safe is the blood supply in the United States?

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The U.S. blood supply is among the safest in the world. Nearly all people infected with HIV through blood transfusions received those transfusions before 1985, the year HIV testing began for all donated blood. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Public Health Service has recommended an approach to blood safety in the United States that includes stringent donor selection practices and the use of screening tests. U.S. blood donations have been screened for antibodies to HIV-1 since March 1985 and HIV-2 since June 1992. The p24 Antigen test was added in 1996. Blood and blood products that test positive for HIV are safely discarded and are not used for transfusions. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tests Performed on Each Unit of Donated Blood* (Source: American Red Cross)[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Disease[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Test[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Year Implemented[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HIV/ AIDS[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HIV/AIDS HIV- I Antibody test [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1985[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HIV-1/2 Antibody test [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1992[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HIV-I p24 Antigen test [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1996[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1999[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis C[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis C Anti-HCV [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1990[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis B [/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis B Surface Antigen test [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1971[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis B Core Antibody [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1987[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Hepatitis ALT [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1986[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Syphilis[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Syphilis Serologic test [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1948[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus (HTLV)[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HTLV-I Antibody [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1989[/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]HTLV -I/II Antibody [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]1998[/size][/font]


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The improvement of processing methods for blood products also has reduced the number of infections resulting from the use of these products. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Currently, the risk of infection with HIV in the United States through receiving a blood transfusion or blood products is extremely low and has become progressively lower, even in geographic areas with high HIV prevalence rates. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]* This list is subject to change as new blood safety opportunities and requirements emerge. Additional tests may be performed to meet special patient needs. [/font]

Note from Charlie V:

To respond to the poster who mentioned the six-month incubation period, this is true of Western Blot antibody testing. It is not true of the [size=-1]HIV-I p24 Antigen test in use since 1996.[/size]

The p24 test, from my understanding based on what I read on several sites, is accurate within about a few days to a week after initial infection--and prior to that, the virus isn't even in the blood yet, which is why it doesn't show up in the test, so the blood at that point would be safe.

But don't lull yourself into thinking that stopping homosexual donations will help. You don't always know who the homosexuals are--many hide their true identity--and heterosexuals can and do contract HIV. I personally know people with HIV who are completely heterosexual, including women.

If you really think that the blood supply is unsafe, for one thing, I think you're wrong, but for the other thing, you are free to abstain from blood regardless of who is donating it. But don't think that because someone is heterosexual it means their blood is clean--and conversely, don't think because someone is homosexual that their blood isn't clean.

Charlie