holy crap, Internet Oracle

[the_siobhan]

So it seems like if you want to get a lot of comments you ask a question about a controversial topic.

Let's experiment and see if I can do it again.

So I'm on a mailing list where the discussion topic is the ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood to Canadian Blood Services. The person defending this ban claims it is necessary to safeguard blood recipients against HIV and Hepatitis.

I claim overt bigotry.

What do you think?

[EDIT] To be precise, the actual ban is on men who have ever had sex with men. They also ask women if they have ever had sex with a man who has ever had sex with a man. They do not ask questions about safe-sex practices. They do ask if you have ever had a test for HIV and why.

Comments

[digital-space.livejournal.com]

Overt bigotry. Gay men also can't donate organs.

[reddragdiva]

They can in the UK, though their blood is still considered filthy and unclean.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

Really? I wasn't aware of that.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

I agree, overt bigotry and homophobia.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Overt bigotry.

[emzebel.livejournal.com]

The American Red Cross has the same restrictions (although, I think for women, it's have you had sex with a man within the past 5 years who ever had sex with a man after 1976 or something like that).

Overt bigotry and a huge potential drain on the blood supply.

[lil-m-moses.livejournal.com]

It's only a 1-year deferral for women in the US (as of 1996, when that rule last applied to me).

Agreed on the overt bigotry. When the rule was first enacted it made statistical sense, but I'm pretty sure the odds have evened out considerably since then.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's bigotry because it's making a lot of immediate negative assumptions, namely that sex between men is always risky, that all men who sleep with men are not practicing safe sex, and from that, we can proceed to the assumption that all men who have sex with men are promiscuous.

Why ask about HIV testing if they're going to disregard the answers? If an applicant has tested for HIV and is nagative, why can't they donate blood?

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

There is a lag period between exposure and sero-conversion. So it's possible that if you were recently exposed you could pass the screening but still be infectious.

[reddragdiva]

The rationalisation is they're worried about the next blood-borne disease that they haven't detected yet passed on by disgusting faggots promiscuous unsafe sex.

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

Overt bigotry. Plain and simple. I really can't come up with anything more coherent than that. The stupid hurts my head.

[holmes365.livejournal.com]

Same issue with the American Red Cross. I no longer donate because they make no effort to address risky behavior, you are damned regardless if you have ever had sex with a bisexual or homosexual male.
Bullshit, imo.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

*nod* Sooner or later someone's going to figure out that the at least a large part of reason that "donating blood is more critical than ever" has to do with that the size of the donor pool that that doesn't screen out of the process keeps shrinking ever more rapidly. I'd wild-assed guess that about a third of the population at this point may as well never walk in the door.

[excess-and-oohs.livejournal.com]

don't they screen all the blood anyway? not like they're going to just pass it on to the recipient with the donor's word that he or she has no blood borne diseases.

overt bigotry. retarded, too.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

They do, but it is possible to get false negatives. Also there is a lag period after initial exposure where you can pass blood tests because the virus hasn't become fully established in your body yet but you can still pass the virus on to others.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

It's practical bigotry; much easier to issue a blanket "no, thank you" than test every donation from a group that's statistically higher-risk.

Note: I'm good at devil's advocacy, and my opinion may or may not align with the above statement(s).

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

1. They test every single sample anyway.

2. They do not address high-risk behaviour in the heterosexual population which might be putting the blood supply at increased risk.

3. They are screaming about blood shortages and post-phoning surgeries because they have eliminated a large pool of healthy donors. I used to be the person on the phone telling the hospital that had just ordered 10 units of blood that we only had three to spare.

[ravensee.livejournal.com]

OVERT BIGOTRY.

Straight people get AIDS too, so they should ban us all.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Artificial blood was supposed to be five years down the road. That was two years ago, so we'll see.

[icedrake.livejournal.com]

Here's one for you, then: Did you know that *regardless of the answer* to why you had an HIV test, you are barred from donating blood for at least six months following said test? When I answered in the positive, and informed them that it was part of a routine safe-sex testing practice, the nurse defaulted my answer to "curiosity," and declared that I must have had some reason to *be* curious, and thus was a higher-risk person than someone who never bothered with testing.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

You know, I kind of suspected that from the reaction when I told them I had been tested. It was over six months prior though, so they let me through.

You wanna know the real kicker? I used to work with live HIV in a lab.

[sushidog.livejournal.com]

I'm undecided on this one. On the surface, yes, it looks like bigotry, but there are some buts, as it were.
Firstly, donating blood isn't actually a right. It's a nice thing to be able to do, it gives you that glow of altruism, but if you're not allowed to do it, you're not being deprived of something to which you are entitled. (For the record, I'm currently not allowed to give blood, and haven't been for some time.)

Secondly, although I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that the rationale for not taking blood from men who have had sex with a man (or from people who have injected drugs, or who have been paid for sex) is basically a statistical one, rather than a political one. HIV is, or at least used to be, most prevalent in men who have sex with men, and in people who inject drugs, therefore statistically it makes sense to exclude those groups, because, statistically, it will reduce the risk of infected blood getting into use.

Thirdly, a couple of people have mentioned that they don't ask about safe sex practices; the reason they don't ask about safe sex practices is because people lie about safe sex practices. Pretty much anyone who goes to give blood is going to claim they practice safe sex, even though actually, most of them will, at some point or another, have indulged in unsafe sex; again, that's statistically true, and has nothing to do with sexuality; it's equally true of people who have sex with MOTOS.

[reddragdiva]

From http://www.blood.co.uk/pdfdocs/blood_matters_19.pdf :

Men who have sex with men

The evidence for barring MSM from donating blood is
soundly based, though frequently (and vocally)
contested by those who claim that our policy is
unjustified – and even denies human rights – as more
heterosexuals than MSM in the UK are now newly
diagnosed with HIV each year. However, from HPA
data and sociological surveys it can be estimated that
approximate numbers of men newly diagnosed with
HIV in the UK each year are very approximately

1 in 1000 for MSMs;

1 in 2,000 for men who are not homosexual or
bisexual, but who may have other risk factors such as
drug use or born overseas (especially in Africa);

1 in 40,000 for heterosexual men with no other
identified factor which might put them at higher risk.

We can expect continuing challenges to our policies,
including from registered civil partners. Current criteria
are consistent with the EU Directive which bars those
whose sexual lifestyle puts them at relatively high risk,
although occasionally MSM nationals from other EU
countries state that they regularly donate at home.
The NBS goes by UK epidemiology where higher risk
in MSM is amply demonstrable.

[melete.livejournal.com]

Overt bigotry based on what has been stated before. There are just as many heterosexual folks who are risky in their sexual behavior as homosexuals and the screening should reflect that. Until you start asking about behaviors rather than labels you are effectively wasting your time as an institution and you are turning away (or never attracting folks in the first place) who might be willing to do a civic service.

I'd agree with Ryan that blood donation is not a right. You are going to have to turn people away due to a variety of legitimate reasons. However, institutionalized bigotry should not be accepted passively and both Health Canada and the US Red Cross should sit down and review their policies to determine what exactly it is they are trying to weed out and find a more effective means of doing so.

Plus, this doesn't currently capture the fact that at least in the US the homosexual population is not our biigest concern in regards to the current spread of HIV infections or also where we are finding the largest amount of unknown infections.

Interestingly, I just found out that while I hadn't been able to give blood previously because I lived in Europe too long (they were worried about vCJD), that restriction appears to have been eased. It used to be that had you lived there for more than 6 months could never donate. It now appears to be 5 years.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the segment of the population which carries out the most risky form of behavior, is, statistically the highest risk population group.

However, institutionalized bigotry should not be accepted passively and both Health Canada and the US Red Cross should sit down and review their policies to determine what exactly it is they are trying to weed out and find a more effective means of doing so.

In the US its a pretty broad range of factors which exclude as I stated above:
risky heterosexual behavior
IV drug use
travel to certain countries
exposure/work in certain industries
Past history of certain illnesses

Plus, this doesn't currently capture the fact that at least in the US the homosexual population is not our biigest concern in regards to the current spread of HIV infections or also where we are finding the largest amount of unknown infections.

Not having access to a medical library with additional statistically inclined journals I ahve to ask this question:

What are the percentages of growth of HIV cases in total population segments? IS it still that HIV infection is most common X cases for a population of say 100,000 vs 3x number of cases for a population of say 5,000,000?

Don't be fooled by a larger number of new cases for a much larger population group. Look at the rates for that population case/100,000.

Ew, man-cooties!

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Bigotry. By the "logic" of this ban, they should reject every woman who has ever had sex with a man, as well.

Re: Ew, man-cooties!

[sushidog.livejournal.com]

Unless the logic is that, statistically, men who have sex with men are a higher-risk group than women who have sex with men, or men who don't have sex with men. Which, as it happens, it is, and which, as it happens, is statistically true.

Devil's Advocate

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

1) Giving blood isn't actually a right, is it?

2) As you said, there's a lag, right? I remember that from getting tested. That means that they're are significant risks of infected blood coming into the supply. How long does blood keep? How long before the lag is over? Would it be worth it to wait for a certain amount off time and then re-test before use? Also, how much does testing the blood cost?

3) Yes, saying that all queers are promiscuous/engage in unsafe sex is a false statement. Goes without saying. OTOH, pretty much every gay man I've ever met has been wildly promiscuous and spent a lot of time in bathhouses trolling for random cock. Not something I'd call safe behaviour, really. Sure, that doesn't apply to everyone but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Hell, good friend of mine met his husband in a bathhouse.

4) People lie all the time about safe sex. Boys, girls, straights, queers, no difference. People lie about safe sex. "Oh, yes. I've only ever had fully protected sex wearing a hazmat suit. You can trust me, baby, I'm clean." Pfff...

Bigotry? Probably. What would be interesting, however, would be seeing if there are any strong statistics describing promiscuity and safe sex in the gay community. You could then make the argument one way or another with the support of numbers. Unfortunately, all I can find is patently biased.

Re: Devil's Advocate

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

1. No. However need for blood is rising rapidly. Donations are not. They are refusing to accept healthy donors. They are allowing risky donors.

2. Platelets last about 10 dys under the new process, red blood cells something like 45 days and plasma can be frozen for a year. The essential parts of the blood don't really last long enough to make holding it very practical.

Each individual who donates is tracked pretty carefully. One thing Axel suggested (which I think is a pretty good idea, actually) is doing pretty extensive screening on the first donation to the extent of not using it for transfusions, with follow-up testing as they go along.

3) Dude, I was wildly promiscuous in my younger years. But because I didn't know whether any of partners did a little experimenting on the side, I'm still considered a safe donor. If a gay man has not engaged in risky behaviour for an extended period of time, why is he still considered a greater risk than a heterosexual who is still engaging in risky behaviour?

4) If we don't trust the screening process - why even have it?

[sarah-mum.livejournal.com]

Neither can you donate if you've had a tattoo or piercing in the last year. Is this bigotry against 'alternative' people?
As has been stated in many comments on this, it's playing the odds - statistics win.
I propose the addition of a "ladies, do you take it up the bum?" question, for the sake of equality.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Six months here.

Which is entirely fair because it is targeting a specific behaviour until the risk period has passed. It's not banning every person who has ever had a tattoo or had sex with a person who has ever had a tattoo for the rest of their life.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry.


I am a dirty, dirty girl who has had sex with dirty, dirty fags, and has dirty, dirty tattoos. So I am out of the Clean Kids Club.

Yet the last time the Rogues in Colorado did a blood drive, I was two weeks out from my most recent bloodwork including extensive STD and other blood-borne illness screening, and I know for a fact that many of the people who were allowed to donate have dirty, dirty sexual habits... that happen to only involve members of the opposite sex. So they could play and I could not.

Sheer bigotry.

(I'm also nearly excluded for life thanks to the amount of time I've spent in the UK. Next trip there should do it.)

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I kind of wonder how they came up with the amount of UK time that constitutes a risk. Are there numbers associated with the time limits? Or did they just pull them out of their ass?

[redbird]

Yes, there's some degree of being over-cautious. Public health officials are always fighting the last epidemic. The FDA went a long time on drug approval policies based on what happened in 1962*--and then adjusted those to make drugs available faster under pressure from ACT-UP.

There's also bigotry.

I base this on the one I came across (I think it was Arizona) that said I would be deferred for life if I had had sex with a man who had himself had sex with a man since 1977. And I would be deferred for 12 months if I had had sex with a man who had had a positive HIV test.

A positive HIV test is considered less of a risk than evidence of behavior that is believed to increase the risk of HIV infection. Because 100% is less than, um, what?

(I did assure a socially conservative acquaintance, some years ago, that he was in fact eligible to give blood, because they didn't care who he was attracted to, only whether he had had sex with men. Since he had had sex with nobody, he was by those standards a wonderful donor.]

*adrian_turtle was surprised when she started telling me about a seminar on adverse effects in medicine, she said "1962," and I immediately said "thalidomide." [The problem being addressed at that session was that precisely because the effects of thalidomide are horrific and short-term, they were relatively easy to track down. Cox-2 inhibitors were harder.]

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I base this on the one I came across (I think it was Arizona) that said I would be deferred for life if I had had sex with a man who had himself had sex with a man since 1977. And I would be deferred for 12 months if I had had sex with a man who had had a positive HIV test.

You know, if it were anybody else who said that I would think you had somehow mis-read the criteria in some way.

Sorry, elusis. This is the stupidest thing I've heard all week.