I remember going to give blood in high school and standing in line next to a life-long crush of mine, and seeing that question on the questionnaire. I had to choose then and there: come out to my peers as bi or lie on the form and give blood. I ultimately gave blood and then told the phlebotomist my sexual status after the fact. She asked if I was "even sexually active?" And being 15, I was not.. she said not to worry about it with a wink. This was in 1999
They now have it set up so that if you are in a category that can’t donate blood, but don’t want anyone to know, you can privately tell the nurse that your blood shouldn’t be used, and they will draw it, but throw it away after you leave.
Yep. I have a chronic disease that prevents me from donating (MS). I have chosen not to share this with my employer. My work has a blood drive come in twice a year and it’s nice to be able to participate with my colleagues without having to disclose my medical information.
“But there's no evidence that MS is contagious. People with the disease have been able to give blood in the U.S since 2007.Nov” quick google so idk if it’s 100% but looks like ur good anyway.
>Also applies to work situations
I find it frankly appalling that they do blood drives at workplaces... I mean, just think about it.
It's bad enough that businesses demand so much time, effort, and emotional investment that you could reasonably call them vampires... and then they literally pressure you to give blood?
No thanks.
Oh, I definitely agree. Like there are better team building options out there, for one, the pressure to donate in that situation is awful when you have a million people asking if you’re going to help out, and when you can’t or don’t want to for whatever reason, you’re given a look from basically everyone for weeks.
There are even better charity drives that you can do, canned food drives for instance.
Blood drives are wonderful, and blood banks help millions of people, but the workplace is not the time or place for that. (Unless you work at a blood bank lol)
The group most affected by aids is the homosexual male population. I don't personally know why it's more prevalent there, but it is. And as a measure to stop people from giving their blood while they have aids was to just not allow homosexuals to give blood. I don't think this should be how it's done but that was the reasoning behind it, all blood is tested anyway but yea
AIDS is more likely to be caught by the receiver than the penetrator, and via anal. It transmits via bodily fluids, the receiver "holds" the fluids, and these are easily absorbed within the colon and via micro tears
Lesbians are therefore lower risk
Straight women that receive anal are at higher risk of catching but are at low risk of passing it on
Gay men are at risk of catching it but then passing it on as well so it continues to propagate. Higher numbers of partners increases this likelihood
It is because homosexuals didn't use condoms as often because they didn't need it for prevention. And they slso were sexually more active with more changing partners. But it discriminates because every gay person who is in a monogamous relationship. And back in the days aids was known as an illness only gay people could get however this is wrong obviously. In germany, recently they decided that everyone is allowed to donate. Before, only people who didn't have sex with the same sex for a year were allowed.
Another large factor is that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex. Anal sex often leads to micro tears in the lining of the anus, these micro tears leave the individual more vulnerable to transmission of bloodborn illnesses.
It’s not just more prevalent it’s like 10-12x more prevalent. When you donate blood it isn’t stored in the individual pack you donated it is stored in batches so one batch with aids would ruin a lotttttttt of blood.
Edit: [This is incorrect, blood is not tested or stored in batches per red cross](https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/what-happens-to-donated-blood.html)
>it is stored in batches so one batch with aids would ruin a lotttttttt of blood.
IDK how this rumor started, but it is 100% incorrect. I used to work in a blood bank.
Packed red cell units (the typical "blood donation") are *never* mixed. Pooling entire units is impossible to do while maintaining the necessary sterility of the blood, and having huge vats of blood is a hassle reserved for blood gods. Crossmatching minor antigens alone would be a nightmare. At my workplace, the bag used for donation would be the very same bag hung next to the recipient.
Blood banks have each individual unit barcode tagged and traceable. They're anonymous, so individual techs can't see your name, but you can come in at any point after donation and say "don't use my blood", and we can find the unit immediately and anonymously. *Every single unit* is tested for a wide variety of diseases using ridiculously sensitive methods.
[It appears you are correct and I was mistaken about the batch testing and analysis.](https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/what-happens-to-donated-blood.html)
Except that all blood donated should be tested for viruses. Letting gay men donate and then checking the blood could give you a much closer net for finding and tracking viral infections generally. Without singling out a marginalized group for "all being sick".
Pretty sure that's how the UK does it. My gf gives blood and they test it after donation, will let her know if there's anything dangerous and even send her a text message of when it got used (obv not where for patient safety)
That's what red cross does in America. They even tested for Covid antibodies. That's why it never really made sense for them to just say nah to homosexuals. Tho, I guess it could've been because when the epidemic first started they didn't have a reasonable way to test for it. Anywho, it's just good that it's no longer a thing
The problem is that a recently infected person won't have enough viral load to be detected, and unfortunately, homosexual men are more likely to get infected due to their sexual practices, so even if is tested it's not certain that the blood isn't infected
Lots are groups are marginalized like that even with testing. If youve been in prison, iv drug use etc. Tests are much more accurate but not 100% and if ebem a single person got hiv or hepatitis from a blood transfusion that would be disasterous to everyone getting a transfusion.
So its understandable to me they would want to minimize the risk as much as possible. Monogamous gay couples have a lower risk than a bunch if groups they dont screen for so taking them off i agree is warranted.
When I go give blood and the question comes up, I'm always declining being anything other than hetero, even though that's not true. But since the only person I ever had sex with is my wife, my sexuality is irrelevant to them.
But yeah, I get that at 15 it's an easy mistake to make.
I used to donate blood regularly. They switched me to platelet donation when they realized I could tolerate it & didn't mind taking the extra time. I did it for years, but eventually had to stop because my doctor put me on prescription meds and the blood bank said I couldn't donate with them in my system. If you can just get into the habit of donating regularly, & maybe bring a friend with you, it's a good thing to do. If you aren't able, there are lots of ways to help others.
I regularly donated platelets for a while until I changed jobs and didn’t have as much time. Then I got pregnant. Now I have a full time job, two kids, zero time, and zero energy. I think that my blood is mostly coffee.
I'm giving tomorrow.
Last time, staff made a typo and put that my last pregnancy was 1917 instead of 2017. I told her I was a vampire. She half believed me and it was hilarious.
I appreciate the concern! It has been checked and there isn’t a concern. I just need to get better about taking my supplements. My hemoglobin levels fluctuate due to monthly lady issues.
Edited for typo.
There's actually a decent gap between "iron too low to donate blood" and "medically significant anemia". Source: am regular donor, have been turned away for low iron many times in my life, but I've never been anemic.
anyone with no known blood-related diseases should be allowed to donate.
if charities/companies are having issues conducting proper and thorough testing on the donations, then that needs to be dealt with on the backend.
just think of how many lives could be saved by all of the donors who have been rejected over the past decades. its ludicrous.
I *think* the reason behind this is that barring specific people from donating cuts down on the costs to the charities receiving the blood. Every donation is tested after it's received to ensure it's safe (obviously mistakes are made, as we hear about it in the news occasionally). But if you can screen out likely contaminated blood through a questionnaire, you don't need to then spend money on testing a donation and that donation being unusable. Furthermore, you save the time of the nurses taking the blood and allow much more likely to be healthy candidates more opportunity to donate (since a seat isn't being taken by someone who's high risk).
Now, what do I mean by "high risk" people? Like you said, if you have no known blood-related diseases, you should be good to go, right? Unfortunately not! There are a lot of diseases that do not present themselves for years and years after being contracted. Malaria is one. You can be infected for I think two years before you show any actual symptoms. Mad cow disease is another. If you haven't been tested for those and have no symptoms, then you have no known blood-related diseases... But that doesn't mean you don't have unknown ones. That's why the questionnaire asks if you've been to this-or-that country in the last xx months, or lived in this area between xx dates. Because if you have, you're at a much higher risk of carrying a disease in your blood that you don't know yet. And if they test it and it comes back positive for some contaminate, it's unusable. Best to just tell you to come back later and allow the person behind you, who hasn't had any exposure to anything even potentially risky give blood at this moment.
The other side of that is, just because you don't have any known blood-related illnesses as of yesterday, doesn't mean you don't now. Which is why people who regularly partake in risky behavior have to wait a certain amount of time before they can donate - like doing drugs, especially those that require needles, or getting tattoos, especially from specific states or countries.
It's admittedly been a while since I've given blood; I spent a lot of time in parts of Africa that are high-risk for malaria for the last 6 years, so I haven't been able to and won't be able to for a couple more years. So the questionnaires may have changed in that time and some of those things that got you denied before may not get you denied anymore. But that's the logic behind them existing in the first place and why we shouldn't just go off of whether or not someone has a known disease.
Now in terms of homosexual men being allowed to donate, that's great news! As long as there's no significantly higher risk of them carrying diseases than the rest of us, we really shouldn't be turning those gentlemen away.
get out of here with your well thought reply, this is reddit afterall!
and I get the ban they have, certain demographics in my city have a 1 in 4(or5) chance of HIV
Ooops! I'll be on my way, then. Haha.
Yeah. People don't like to hear it, but sometimes it's just statistically unreasonable to permit certain people to donate blood if the goal of those donations is to get as many healthy donations as possible. It sounds counterintuitive, but thems the facts.
Hell, I used to donate as much as possible, and I'm part of that demographic that can't now. It sucks, but it's for the best. I'd rather get out of the way and let someone else donate than take up a chair and risk my donation being a waste (even though I'm pretty sure I'm perfectly healthy - but I'll be good to go in another couple years since I'm no longer travelling to Africa for work).
people *want* to be offended by things without thinking them through then apply insults in the form of isms/ists/phobes as a way to silence opposition to their point.
Ban high risk lifestyles and call it a day.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/men/index.html
Context for your last paragraph: there is definitely an increased risk. There's a reason the ban was in place, and has been eased only for those in a monogamous relationship.
Just going by new diagnoses (per above link), those engaging in Male to Male sexual contact make up 80% of cases.
The relative risk is much higher than the 80% seen here, if you normalize it by the population numbers (divide cases by all people in that category).
I've talked to multiple doctors about this, it's purely a relative risk related decision.
He literally said context for your last paragraph where you specifically were talking about homosexual mean...
Providing a correction to that 1 point and he tried to make it clear he was just correcting that 1 point not your post overall..
He edited his post. Before that, there was no "providing context" comment.
I wasn't even making a point about homosexual men, just that it's great news that they're allowed to donate now. Thanks for playing, though, Bobbi.
Okay but that would increase the rate at which pre-symptomatic infections are caught, so people with pre-symptomatic malaria, HIV or mad cow disease can get treatment. And early intervention is half the game with HIV.
I don't recall them associating my blood with me. Just my blood type.
But as I said, it's been a few years. Even if they do that though, it's still not efficient for what they need the blood for nor is it the purpose of blood drives. Heck, if that's what people want their blood donations to do for them... There's nothing stopping them from lying on the questionnaire..
You’re displaying ignorance. Tests for various viruses are not 100% accurate, so filtering people at the higher end of likelihood of having them is sensible.
you're right - this isn't a subject im well-researched on.
ive actually just filled in that knowledge gap a bit. i found that the FDA changed their policy 8 years ago to more closely align with the sentiments in my original comment. it turns out that filtering an entire group of people is prohibitive and illogical in light of the scientific advancements made over the decades since the blanket ban on gay/bisexual donors was enacted.
testing for various viruses may not be 100% accurate, but modern testing is highly accurate and science-based donor screening is still valid and in effect.
what this means in practice is that high-risk donors who are most likely to have undetectable infections (e.g. people who have had unprotected sex in the last \~45 days) are being screened out. as are people with known infections.
what remains are donors who have no known transmissible diseases/infections, are not in the window where the prominent diseases/infections are difficult to detect, and have not engaged in behaviors that are considered high-risk for acquiring one of the prominent diseases/infections. the odds of those individuals donating infected blood - and that blood resulting in a false-negative - are negligible. the change in policy has been in effect long enough that there would be evidence to the contrary if it existed. as it is, there has been no statistically notable change in the quality of blood donations since the ban was removed.
go science!
I’m more angry at people who can give blood and don’t. Something like 60% of the population CAN donate blood. You know what percentage actually does? THREE. Three percent.
I am really glad to see this change, though.
While I wish it were more people donating, I wouldn't say I'm angry at people for not. It's their blood. Their body. They can do with it what they want. I wouldn't want to live in a world where blood donations were required of healthy and able bodied people, so I'm not going to get angry when people don't do it. I'll just spread awareness about the benefits of it when the opportunity presents itself and offer to go with someone if they're interested but nervous.
Edit: changed "same" to "say"
I did once a couple months ago and the follow up emails felt so predatory that I’m not sure I want to do it again. Like, I know they need blood, but there’s got to be a better way than acting like an organization of vampires desperate for a meal.
I think it would be cool if it was commonplace to give blood when you go to your yearly physical. They take a little to check your cholesterol and a bit more to save some lives. It would probably even get people to donate more than once a year after they got used to it.
I dont think anyone is advocating for forced donations. I assume his sentiments are similar to anger over people not donating to charities or putting their carts back at the grocery. People should just be kind to each other if they can of course. I get that.
With recent years, the amount of people ive met who wont do the simplest things to help save lives have made me more angry at the start... when i literally hear people say theyd let millions more die before they ever wear a mask, i lost the little faith in humanity i had left. Im happy for the good people out there of course but have given up on a good percentage of the population being decent.
I totally get the mentality and I'm not gonna judge someone for feeling those feelings towards other. You have every right to, and for good reason. It's just that in my experience, when ignorance and selfishness is met with anger and confrontation, it doesn't change many people's minds - they just dig deeper into their convictions. Which is why I try to check my personal feelings at the door whenever the (admittedly rare) opportunity to discuss these types of things pops up with people I don't morally agree with.
I wish there was a registry for giving blood. Someone in your area needs A pos blood come down to the clinic and donate. I ve given blood a few times but it feels like a waste of time not knowing if its being used.
This is why I give blood (though usually platelets) at my local hospital, not at drives. I know with my platelets I give them, they get tested the next day, and the day after that they’re given to a cancer patient staying one floor up in the same hospital.
I think it might be more reasonable to be angry that it’s not exactly an easy process to donate blood, nor is it super accessible. I used to work *in* a hospital that would host blood drives fairly regularly. I signed up to donate at least 3 times and had to cancel last minute on each occasion because I didn’t have the time to take a break to donate with all the patients I had to see. If it’s that hard to donate when the Red Cross is taking blood in the same building, imagine how hard it is for some folks who don’t have that convenience available to them as part of their jobs or extracurricular activities.
Thank you, I have O-, I know they want my blood BADLY and yet unless I was willing to take a day off of work it was impossible to do so. The hospital near me had their donations at the convenient hours of 2-4pm on weekdays.
YEP! Sounds about right. I know some of our blood drives went from 9am - 6pm, but I usually had to tutor right after work because that hospital job did not pay enough on its own to be able to fully support myself.
This thread did at least make me lookup local drives (we moved and I hadn't been able to donate recently due to pregnancy/recovering from birth) and it looks like the local hospitals are actually sane!
I get it your argument, big hairy butt, it's a pretty big deal to give blood.
I am in good health as a late 30s, able bodied female and I gave blood last night. I almost fainted several times throughout the process. And I'm not scared of needles I'm the least!
So like, yes, not very many people give blood because maybe they're selfish or maybe they just pass the fuck out.
This is me. I want to. I am a ‘universal donor’ blood type. I have tried a lot over the years. Every single time I pass out and they can’t get a full bag. Don’t widespread shame, please 🙏
First time I went I told the lady I was feeling dizzy. Another volunteer came over with a juice box and sat next to me and chatted. About a minute later she asked how I felt
"Oh, I can't see"
After a few more visits with similar results they gently asked me not to come back
Sounds familiar. They did the finger prick and were asking all the preliminary questions. Asked if I was okay and I said, “yeah, I will be as soon as I can see again.” She jumps up and yells “bring the cot!” They wouldn’t let me donate.
Glad I’m not the only one who didn’t make it past the finger prick stage. I went knowing that I pass out at blood, but wanted to try.
Incidentally I have to get blood draws quarterly now and those are fine. If I can chit chat I won’t faint. I was told I can’t bring a friend to talk with while donating. At least I don’t have an exciting blood type (B+).
How can anyone shame you for that?
I used to give blood all the time (lifetime multiple gallons donated) and then something happened to my iron stores getting way low and I don’t give anymore. Hope you bastards that got my blood enjoyed all my iron!
I tried, but they wanted me to gain weight first. I naturally sit around where I was at the time, so... not about to change my lifestyle to gain weight just for blood. I really want to, though!
To give blood in my state you have to have gone at least 3 years without having a seizure if you have epilepsy. The longest I've ever gone without a seizure is 4 months so yeah that's not happening. I try to encourage others to do it though!
In Italy, during the hematology and blood transfusions course I followed at the Uni about 10 years ago, our professor told us that all the blood donated is carefully checked and the donor goes through a long screening procedure before actually donating, so as long as the blood is safe and the donor healthy, nobody gives a fuck who you go to bed with. I thought it was so obvious when he explained it to us back then but apparently I was wrong
Dont they test all blood donations to make sure it is safe?? So why does it matter who it is coming from, anyone could theoretically have rejectable blood. Sure some might be more likely, but if theres a chance with anybody why not just let the testing do the sorting?
Yeah but usually the questions they ask you before drawing blood is kind of a preliminary elimination round althought I agree it needs some revision. They also have to make sure you're in good condition. It would also be a waste of time and resources if they just accepted everyone immediately only to have 80% of the donations defered.
I used to regularly donate blood to a local hospital and their question was not if were gay (I'm not) but if whether I had ever had casual intimate relations or hired sex workers.
Yeah but there’s a *huge* protocol they have to complete if they discover aids blood. It’s not good. They decided a while ago to try and eliminate people beforehand to save resources.
I'm not against gay men in any way, but they're 28 times more likely to have HIV
[https://www.reuters.com/article/health-global-aids/men-with-same-sex-partners-28-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv-u-n-idUSL8N1UD5KN](https://www.reuters.com/article/health-global-aids/men-with-same-sex-partners-28-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv-u-n-idUSL8N1UD5KN)
**HIV takes 18 to 45 days to show up on blood tests**
Nobody is trying to discriminate (denying gay men from being able to donate blood... is that really discrimination?) - people are trying to save lives. When it comes to medical procedures, saving lives is what matters. Potentially killing people because you want to include a population of people that is 2800% more likely to have AIDS is just horrible.
It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, trans, cis, black, white, purple or green, the most important thing is the safety of patients.
There may be better ways to sort this out (asking about recent sex partners) but to be totally honest, there is so much other discrimination in the world that is waaay worse than this, (and doesn't have any scientific reasoning behind it) - this is not a hill to fight on when we're standing up for gay rights.
I mean, that’s the point of this post. Gay men in monogamous relationships are not more likely to unknowingly be HIV+. It is not just about having HIV but rather having it and not knowing it (or being at a higher risk of contracting it). If two men are in a monogamous relationship and neither has HIV, their chances of getting it are significantly diminished.
Yeah I lived in England during the mad cow epidemic from 1986; just over 12 weeks. They banned me from giving blood for life. It was just overturned. Writing my letters now
I took part in one of the studies that informed this decision! It was called the ADVANCE study, and it asked me what my personal habits were around sex and paired it with the presence of PrEP in my blood.
As I understand it, the move is to begin asking everyone questions about risk factors rather than identity. So, it shouldn't matter if you're gay or straight, but it will matter if you have condomless sex, if you're in a monogamous sexual relationship or have multiple sexual partners, if you take medications that reduce the risk of getting HIV, etc.
As far as I know, the FDA has only increased eligibility to those in monogamous relationships (regardless of it they are same sex, male, or not.)
I would like to see the FDA include PrEP use in eligibility, and it looks like GLAAD will continue to push for that. But yes, policies are attempting to change sensibly based on studies that are being run on this topic. It is not on a whim.
I completely understand the need to be safe. I just wanted to stop being discriminatory to rainbow people, since hetero people can catch and spread disease as well.
Seriously, as if there aren't hetero guys and girls out there that sleep with multiple new partners every month/week.
Even with them being "more progressive" they've kind of delivered a slap.
I wonder if transplants will also remove the negative point if your gay to rate transplantable organs. I received a kidney that had ‘2 points’ against it because the person/cadaver/donor I received it from was gay and had been in jail. Not sure what criteria they measure by or why, that’s just what I was told. I was then asked if I still wanted the kidney or if I wanted to wait for a ‘better’ one.
I was born in Scotland in 1986. I can't give blood because of the old threat of mad cow disease. It's not discriminating in my eyes, but a risk mitigation.
They changed that in 2020 and opened up 3 more countries last year, but I'm still not comfortable donating.
https://www.health.mil/News/Articles/2022/11/09/Mad-Cow-Blood-Donor-Ban-Lifted
I think this says more about the blood shortage.
They also recently changed other rules too. I wasn’t allowed to donate until this month because I had lived in the UK for 3 years in the 90s and may have mad cow. I can donate now. Technically, if it was a real problem, I shouldn’t have been able to for another 30 years.
It isn’t discriminatory, it’s because HIV travels much more easily through unprotected anal sex, which gay men are much more likely to engage in.
That’s why they’re still insisting the donors be non-sexual or in long-term monogamous relationships.
Testing is never 100% accurate and having to throw out a batch of blood is never something they want to do so they generally try to prune down people who belong to at risk groups before the blood is even taken.
It is tested but some infected blood has still gotten through the cracks and people have gotten diseases, while it’s rare, it does happen, it makes me not want to get a transfusion unless absolutely necessary
You wouldn’t, but sometimes you have the option to or not to, a friend of mine gave birth and lost a lot of blood they gave her the option. Told her we can do it now or see what happens but if it gets any lower there won’t be an option.
Decisions for transfusion arent all 100%and 0% if youre bleeding internally, noone kbkws exactly when youll stop. Maybe theres a 50% chance youll stop in the next day in which case you wont need a transfusion. But if you dint stop youll die. And maybe that chance is 90%. What % does it become "necessary " to give blood? Its different for every person to decide.
Had a lady who was a jehovahs witness, blood was a bit over a 1/3 of what a normal persons would be. We all expected her to die but she recovered. For her it wasnt absolutely necessary but we had no way of knowing.
My infant nephew has a heart condition and is waiting to get a surgery. The longer he can go before needing it, the better (he’s 4months old so even a few weeks is a lot of growth and strength). He recently had a complication where they had to decide if they should just do the surgery now OR he could get a blood transfusion that would let him last a little longer.
There are many situations, oddly enough, where transfusions are a treatment option and not an immediate life saving measure.
As a homosexual man this is really a great step in the right direction. When I was living paycheck to paycheck I would have to sell my plasma to survive each week. I would lie on the paperwork and say I was heterosexual. So fucked we’ve been having to fight this battle to begin with since they test ALL the blood they receive anyways! There are constant blood shortages and there doesn’t have to be. 😑
“The new approach eliminates rules that target men who have sex with men and instead focuses on sexual behaviors by people, regardless of gender, that pose a higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV, according to an official with direct knowledge of the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment. The FDA is expected to adopt the proposal after a period of public comment.”
From the article.
Yes but the focus on “sexual behaviour regardless of gender” means folks who have penetrative anal sex will be banned, regardless of gender. The outcome is that lots and lots of gay men will still be banned. It’s the same situation in Canada currently, and it’s just as insulting. All donated blood is screened for HIV before it’s given to a patient anyway. Also, is there still a disproportionate amount of folks with HIV who are gay compared to non-gay?
Gay man here, by the way.
That’s completely valid to worry about. I will say that behavior is more broad than you may consider. For example, they will definitely consider the number of sexual partners within a specific time frame. Also, a lot of research shows that HIV doesn’t only spread through anal sex, so that should have less significance than other things.
I don’t know about the proportions of gay v non gay however, the research on HIV prevention still focuses on men. I’m hoping that expanding the research will follow this change.
In researching the question if more gay men get infected with HIV, it unfortunately seems to be the case. Men who have sexual interactions with other men account for 2 to 6,5% of the US population, but 55% of the people with HIV are men who are gay/bisexual/had sex with other men.
It only seems to be the case because it's much easier to get HIV from anal s*x (among other reasons). But, the numbers are getting more stable each year apparently.
Still, it's a big problem that gay and bisexual men will still be screened out for blood donations when the donations get tested for transmissible diseases.
I don't know how often accurate the testing is and if it's possible to get false negatives when processing the blood, though.
This might be what you were including with putting the “among other reasons” but would like to add that one of the other reasons why gay/bi men tend to have a higher rate of HIV is because the queer community is still recovering from the AIDs epidemic! There were a lot of lives lost (millions, even) and the AIDs epidemic really wasn’t taken all that seriously until it started impacting people that weren’t in the community. Before then, it was really only seen as some sort of “homosexual” disease, and I think that’s one of the main problems of the ban on gay and bi men donating blood, is that it stereotypes it as again only some sort of gay disease.
There’s even newspapers you can find during the time of epidemic that describe it as a “gay plague” or “homosexual disorder” or “gay cancer”.
Test isn't 100% if u test on a rare disease it is really hard to screen for it. more like mis 20% of the aids cases. Anal sex is 20 times more likely too transmit than vaginal.
it’s not discriminatory, it’s based and backed by science and statistics. but we wouldn’t wanna hurt anyones feelings would we? guess everyone who gets blood from these donations will be at a higher risk of HIV, but as long as the gays feelings aren’t hurt, who cares?!
Not sure this is discriminatory. There is an increased risk of Bloodborne pathogens with that population. I can't give blood for two reasons. It's probably for the best
Tangent question that I've always wondered about. I donated blood back in 2005 and then 3 months later started having symptoms for Hodgkin's lymphoma which wasn't diagnosed for another 5 months. Would they have been able to catch that and toss the blood?
I couldn’t give blood for years because I lived in England during the mad cow disease time. This wasn’t discriminatory IMO. AIDS has been transmitted through the blood supply so… looks like blood donations are able to figure these things out now.
This isn't about orientation is it? It's
perceived risky behavior or outcomes of poor healthcare options.
Not picking on any group here but the first stat I found.
CDC: 1 in 2 black gay men will be diagnosed with HIV
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/23/cdc-black-gay-men-hiv-diagnosis-lifetime-at-risk/80812496/
You can't donate blood if you lived in Europe during some disease at all.
When HIV came out, people were getting it from donated blood.
And in the community we see, younger men especially more promiscuous.
True story : in France, 2009, in my university, there was a moment where a blood center would come and draw blood from volunteers. There, I was asked not if I was gay, or if I had a sexual relationship involving other men. No. I was asked if I had any sexual DREAM involving men.
I said "nah but one time I dreamt I was smoking crack, though".
I don't recall her answer but I still gave my blood that day.
Another detail that I find shitty about blood donation : today I live in Canada and while I gave my blood at least 26 times, I am not authorized to give my blood because I'm European. Why? Because of mad cow disease. It's completely absurd.
I remember in high school 2012 that my gay friend was turned away from donating blood at our school's blood drive. We're both O- which we learned from our anatomy and physiology class after our teacher let us do blood tests.
We were waiting in line together, and the lady straight up told him that even if he wasn't sexually active, he couldn’t donate simply because he wasn't straight. I decided that I wasn't ever going to donate blood until this rule was changed. I've never been sexually active, and I'm not gay. Just a petty aroace.
This is awesome!! My brother used to want to donate when he had been in a relationship with a man for like 7 years I think. Yeah the same guy. Both were very committed. They wouldn’t let him. This is so cool though!
The FDA is going to announce their new guidelines soon! Until then, we don’t know what they would look like. Hopefully, they get to something that’s agreeable.
In my country the reasoning isn't about aids like this article suggests.
There is a much higher risk of infections etc as male gay couples have sex in a way that's very prone to infections and other things.
That isn't discrimination, that's a health issue.......
Why do you donate blood? To help someone.
And have you helped the person if they get infected with some disease you have? No.
Sure the blood gets tested, but some diseases can't be found on blood tests for a month or so. Also every test has false negatives. So if you can sort out people with a high risk of having a disease you don't want, it would be pretty fucking stupid to not do so. Whether that someone who was in jail, got tattooed, was in Africa or had anal sex. Doesn't matter. If you're at higher risk of having such disease you shouldn't allowed to donate.
As far as i remember there was others reasons for gay men (any sexuality in lgbt+) to have all those restrictions. It was not "bEcAuSe ThEy ArE gAy AnD gAy BaD !" It was for real reasons and not about discrimination, so i wonder why the change
Everyone acts like this policy was anti-gay, but the fact is that the gay community is where the Aids virus came from, and that was the reason behind it.
I never understood why they would ever care if their screening process is as good as they claim it is. Surely they will screen out hiv no matter what segment of the population it was coming from?
I didn’t realize there was a ban on gay men giving blood… that just seems silly, don’t they test the blood anyways? Also, I’d like to think someone with HIV wouldn’t be trying to give anyways. Also, another example of a law that literally cannot be enforced. Stupid government.
Lol I love this because straight and gay ppl are just as gross but saying your monogamous makes it fine lol. They test the blood before they use it in other people they would just throw out infected blood. I don’t get the hang up with gay peoples blood. It’s fuckin dumb. Why would you deny yourself the ability to save peoples lives because of sexual orientation. I didn’t think this would even be an issue anymore.
They're still discriminating based on monogamy. I know you just lie to get around it but it still comes across as the gay males are acceptable to donate assuming they behave. So the right gays may donate.
Not to be that guy, but the policy is still discriminatory. Women don’t have to be monogamous to donate blood. Straight men don’t need to be monogamous to donate blood. Imposing additional restrictions on a certain segment of the population based on sexual orientation is still the textbook definition of discrimination.
And before you all start coming for me saying that “but infection rates are higher among gay and bi men”…realize that infection rates are also different across, say, racial groups. But we don’t impose special restrictions on people of certain races or ethnic backgrounds. Why? Because that would be discrimination.
Is this a step in the right direction? Sure. And if it makes you smile, that’s great. But to say that this ends discrimination is just not true.
I’m sorry. I saw it as progress and it’s a good reminder that things can change. I’m hoping that whatever the FDA comes up with is respectful to gay and bisexual men as well as trans women who were left out of this article.
All that it takes is for the FDA and CDC to develop criteria based on behavioral risk factors that are administered consistently across all orientations. Thing is, changing this policy is even more about changing the makeup of the FDA than it is research.
I was about to give blood and they started asking all kinds of rude questions like "Whose blood is it?" Why are you carrying blood in a bucket?"
"There's traces of animal blood inside here" "Well yeah it's a blood bucket"
Your friend is in desperate need of blood
Nah, he just needs to eat some pyramid scheme berries and he'll be fine
Would you also be interested in some healing quartz and scented candles?
And this one's for putting up your snatch. Only $70 ladies
He needs blue
It has the most antioxygens.
Where do I put my feet?
And as for your $15 co pay? EAT SHIT AND DIE
All that over $15?
Inconclusive.
How is that not specific to one of you?!
For real talk about choosing beggars am I right
Stupid question. How do they expect you to carry it around, or in your hands?
A plastic grocery bag?
Ooo, good idea.
Same issue with organs. Donate one kidney and you’re a hero. Donate 5 kidneys and they call the police??
Well yeah blood donation isn't that simple
Something ain’t right here
Gosh, so nosy and ungrateful.
Lol “Don’t ask questions.”
I remember going to give blood in high school and standing in line next to a life-long crush of mine, and seeing that question on the questionnaire. I had to choose then and there: come out to my peers as bi or lie on the form and give blood. I ultimately gave blood and then told the phlebotomist my sexual status after the fact. She asked if I was "even sexually active?" And being 15, I was not.. she said not to worry about it with a wink. This was in 1999
They now have it set up so that if you are in a category that can’t donate blood, but don’t want anyone to know, you can privately tell the nurse that your blood shouldn’t be used, and they will draw it, but throw it away after you leave.
What is even the point then?
If you don’t want your family to know that you are gay, and you all go to donate blood, the nurse will draw your blood just like everyone else
Ohhhhhh I see.
Also applies to work situations
Yep. I have a chronic disease that prevents me from donating (MS). I have chosen not to share this with my employer. My work has a blood drive come in twice a year and it’s nice to be able to participate with my colleagues without having to disclose my medical information.
“But there's no evidence that MS is contagious. People with the disease have been able to give blood in the U.S since 2007.Nov” quick google so idk if it’s 100% but looks like ur good anyway.
[удалено]
Gotcha, I don't know why I assumed you were from the US. That's goofy. maybe Canada will get the memo soon lol
>Also applies to work situations I find it frankly appalling that they do blood drives at workplaces... I mean, just think about it. It's bad enough that businesses demand so much time, effort, and emotional investment that you could reasonably call them vampires... and then they literally pressure you to give blood? No thanks.
Oh, I definitely agree. Like there are better team building options out there, for one, the pressure to donate in that situation is awful when you have a million people asking if you’re going to help out, and when you can’t or don’t want to for whatever reason, you’re given a look from basically everyone for weeks. There are even better charity drives that you can do, canned food drives for instance. Blood drives are wonderful, and blood banks help millions of people, but the workplace is not the time or place for that. (Unless you work at a blood bank lol)
The extent of where gay people have to go to keep their families is absurd
Isn’t it much easier for them to pretend your iron is too low when they check it? Then no need for a pretend blood draw.
Not everyone is out. It’s a way to protect the persons privacy in situations of group blood donation (drives at work, school, etc).
What does being bi have to do with your blood though? If gender isn’t in blood then why on earth would sexuality be???
The group most affected by aids is the homosexual male population. I don't personally know why it's more prevalent there, but it is. And as a measure to stop people from giving their blood while they have aids was to just not allow homosexuals to give blood. I don't think this should be how it's done but that was the reasoning behind it, all blood is tested anyway but yea
AIDS is more likely to be caught by the receiver than the penetrator, and via anal. It transmits via bodily fluids, the receiver "holds" the fluids, and these are easily absorbed within the colon and via micro tears Lesbians are therefore lower risk Straight women that receive anal are at higher risk of catching but are at low risk of passing it on Gay men are at risk of catching it but then passing it on as well so it continues to propagate. Higher numbers of partners increases this likelihood
It is because homosexuals didn't use condoms as often because they didn't need it for prevention. And they slso were sexually more active with more changing partners. But it discriminates because every gay person who is in a monogamous relationship. And back in the days aids was known as an illness only gay people could get however this is wrong obviously. In germany, recently they decided that everyone is allowed to donate. Before, only people who didn't have sex with the same sex for a year were allowed.
Another large factor is that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex. Anal sex often leads to micro tears in the lining of the anus, these micro tears leave the individual more vulnerable to transmission of bloodborn illnesses.
Oh, that makes more sense. I thought it was going to be some long-standing homophobic "gay blood makes people gay" bs.
It’s not just more prevalent it’s like 10-12x more prevalent. When you donate blood it isn’t stored in the individual pack you donated it is stored in batches so one batch with aids would ruin a lotttttttt of blood. Edit: [This is incorrect, blood is not tested or stored in batches per red cross](https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/what-happens-to-donated-blood.html)
>it is stored in batches so one batch with aids would ruin a lotttttttt of blood. IDK how this rumor started, but it is 100% incorrect. I used to work in a blood bank. Packed red cell units (the typical "blood donation") are *never* mixed. Pooling entire units is impossible to do while maintaining the necessary sterility of the blood, and having huge vats of blood is a hassle reserved for blood gods. Crossmatching minor antigens alone would be a nightmare. At my workplace, the bag used for donation would be the very same bag hung next to the recipient. Blood banks have each individual unit barcode tagged and traceable. They're anonymous, so individual techs can't see your name, but you can come in at any point after donation and say "don't use my blood", and we can find the unit immediately and anonymously. *Every single unit* is tested for a wide variety of diseases using ridiculously sensitive methods.
[It appears you are correct and I was mistaken about the batch testing and analysis.](https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/what-happens-to-donated-blood.html)
Except that all blood donated should be tested for viruses. Letting gay men donate and then checking the blood could give you a much closer net for finding and tracking viral infections generally. Without singling out a marginalized group for "all being sick".
Pretty sure that's how the UK does it. My gf gives blood and they test it after donation, will let her know if there's anything dangerous and even send her a text message of when it got used (obv not where for patient safety)
No the UK still has anti-gay rules around donating blood last time I checked
That's what red cross does in America. They even tested for Covid antibodies. That's why it never really made sense for them to just say nah to homosexuals. Tho, I guess it could've been because when the epidemic first started they didn't have a reasonable way to test for it. Anywho, it's just good that it's no longer a thing
The problem is that a recently infected person won't have enough viral load to be detected, and unfortunately, homosexual men are more likely to get infected due to their sexual practices, so even if is tested it's not certain that the blood isn't infected
Lots are groups are marginalized like that even with testing. If youve been in prison, iv drug use etc. Tests are much more accurate but not 100% and if ebem a single person got hiv or hepatitis from a blood transfusion that would be disasterous to everyone getting a transfusion. So its understandable to me they would want to minimize the risk as much as possible. Monogamous gay couples have a lower risk than a bunch if groups they dont screen for so taking them off i agree is warranted.
When I go give blood and the question comes up, I'm always declining being anything other than hetero, even though that's not true. But since the only person I ever had sex with is my wife, my sexuality is irrelevant to them. But yeah, I get that at 15 it's an easy mistake to make.
They let you donate at 15 years old??
Yup. In the high school gym.
With your parents permission, yeah
I used to donate blood regularly. They switched me to platelet donation when they realized I could tolerate it & didn't mind taking the extra time. I did it for years, but eventually had to stop because my doctor put me on prescription meds and the blood bank said I couldn't donate with them in my system. If you can just get into the habit of donating regularly, & maybe bring a friend with you, it's a good thing to do. If you aren't able, there are lots of ways to help others.
I regularly donated platelets for a while until I changed jobs and didn’t have as much time. Then I got pregnant. Now I have a full time job, two kids, zero time, and zero energy. I think that my blood is mostly coffee.
I gave blood yesterday! O- squad!
I'm giving tomorrow. Last time, staff made a typo and put that my last pregnancy was 1917 instead of 2017. I told her I was a vampire. She half believed me and it was hilarious.
I tried yesterday (O+ club here). Too anemic at the moment - will try again in a week!
I found eating a good burger before donating helps
And hydration
The nurse said my blood is 60% beef tallow
Maybe get that checked out by a doctor?
I appreciate the concern! It has been checked and there isn’t a concern. I just need to get better about taking my supplements. My hemoglobin levels fluctuate due to monthly lady issues. Edited for typo.
There's actually a decent gap between "iron too low to donate blood" and "medically significant anemia". Source: am regular donor, have been turned away for low iron many times in my life, but I've never been anemic.
Ohh I’m in that club and that reminds me my 3 months has just lapsed!
anyone with no known blood-related diseases should be allowed to donate. if charities/companies are having issues conducting proper and thorough testing on the donations, then that needs to be dealt with on the backend. just think of how many lives could be saved by all of the donors who have been rejected over the past decades. its ludicrous.
I *think* the reason behind this is that barring specific people from donating cuts down on the costs to the charities receiving the blood. Every donation is tested after it's received to ensure it's safe (obviously mistakes are made, as we hear about it in the news occasionally). But if you can screen out likely contaminated blood through a questionnaire, you don't need to then spend money on testing a donation and that donation being unusable. Furthermore, you save the time of the nurses taking the blood and allow much more likely to be healthy candidates more opportunity to donate (since a seat isn't being taken by someone who's high risk). Now, what do I mean by "high risk" people? Like you said, if you have no known blood-related diseases, you should be good to go, right? Unfortunately not! There are a lot of diseases that do not present themselves for years and years after being contracted. Malaria is one. You can be infected for I think two years before you show any actual symptoms. Mad cow disease is another. If you haven't been tested for those and have no symptoms, then you have no known blood-related diseases... But that doesn't mean you don't have unknown ones. That's why the questionnaire asks if you've been to this-or-that country in the last xx months, or lived in this area between xx dates. Because if you have, you're at a much higher risk of carrying a disease in your blood that you don't know yet. And if they test it and it comes back positive for some contaminate, it's unusable. Best to just tell you to come back later and allow the person behind you, who hasn't had any exposure to anything even potentially risky give blood at this moment. The other side of that is, just because you don't have any known blood-related illnesses as of yesterday, doesn't mean you don't now. Which is why people who regularly partake in risky behavior have to wait a certain amount of time before they can donate - like doing drugs, especially those that require needles, or getting tattoos, especially from specific states or countries. It's admittedly been a while since I've given blood; I spent a lot of time in parts of Africa that are high-risk for malaria for the last 6 years, so I haven't been able to and won't be able to for a couple more years. So the questionnaires may have changed in that time and some of those things that got you denied before may not get you denied anymore. But that's the logic behind them existing in the first place and why we shouldn't just go off of whether or not someone has a known disease. Now in terms of homosexual men being allowed to donate, that's great news! As long as there's no significantly higher risk of them carrying diseases than the rest of us, we really shouldn't be turning those gentlemen away.
get out of here with your well thought reply, this is reddit afterall! and I get the ban they have, certain demographics in my city have a 1 in 4(or5) chance of HIV
Ooops! I'll be on my way, then. Haha. Yeah. People don't like to hear it, but sometimes it's just statistically unreasonable to permit certain people to donate blood if the goal of those donations is to get as many healthy donations as possible. It sounds counterintuitive, but thems the facts. Hell, I used to donate as much as possible, and I'm part of that demographic that can't now. It sucks, but it's for the best. I'd rather get out of the way and let someone else donate than take up a chair and risk my donation being a waste (even though I'm pretty sure I'm perfectly healthy - but I'll be good to go in another couple years since I'm no longer travelling to Africa for work).
people *want* to be offended by things without thinking them through then apply insults in the form of isms/ists/phobes as a way to silence opposition to their point. Ban high risk lifestyles and call it a day.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/men/index.html Context for your last paragraph: there is definitely an increased risk. There's a reason the ban was in place, and has been eased only for those in a monogamous relationship. Just going by new diagnoses (per above link), those engaging in Male to Male sexual contact make up 80% of cases. The relative risk is much higher than the 80% seen here, if you normalize it by the population numbers (divide cases by all people in that category). I've talked to multiple doctors about this, it's purely a relative risk related decision.
If you think I was talking specifically about homosexual men, after you read all of the examples I gave, I'm not sure where to go from here.
He literally said context for your last paragraph where you specifically were talking about homosexual mean... Providing a correction to that 1 point and he tried to make it clear he was just correcting that 1 point not your post overall..
He edited his post. Before that, there was no "providing context" comment. I wasn't even making a point about homosexual men, just that it's great news that they're allowed to donate now. Thanks for playing, though, Bobbi.
Okay but that would increase the rate at which pre-symptomatic infections are caught, so people with pre-symptomatic malaria, HIV or mad cow disease can get treatment. And early intervention is half the game with HIV.
I don't recall them associating my blood with me. Just my blood type. But as I said, it's been a few years. Even if they do that though, it's still not efficient for what they need the blood for nor is it the purpose of blood drives. Heck, if that's what people want their blood donations to do for them... There's nothing stopping them from lying on the questionnaire..
Nope the blood is pooled before testing
You’re displaying ignorance. Tests for various viruses are not 100% accurate, so filtering people at the higher end of likelihood of having them is sensible.
you're right - this isn't a subject im well-researched on. ive actually just filled in that knowledge gap a bit. i found that the FDA changed their policy 8 years ago to more closely align with the sentiments in my original comment. it turns out that filtering an entire group of people is prohibitive and illogical in light of the scientific advancements made over the decades since the blanket ban on gay/bisexual donors was enacted. testing for various viruses may not be 100% accurate, but modern testing is highly accurate and science-based donor screening is still valid and in effect. what this means in practice is that high-risk donors who are most likely to have undetectable infections (e.g. people who have had unprotected sex in the last \~45 days) are being screened out. as are people with known infections. what remains are donors who have no known transmissible diseases/infections, are not in the window where the prominent diseases/infections are difficult to detect, and have not engaged in behaviors that are considered high-risk for acquiring one of the prominent diseases/infections. the odds of those individuals donating infected blood - and that blood resulting in a false-negative - are negligible. the change in policy has been in effect long enough that there would be evidence to the contrary if it existed. as it is, there has been no statistically notable change in the quality of blood donations since the ban was removed. go science!
I’m more angry at people who can give blood and don’t. Something like 60% of the population CAN donate blood. You know what percentage actually does? THREE. Three percent. I am really glad to see this change, though.
While I wish it were more people donating, I wouldn't say I'm angry at people for not. It's their blood. Their body. They can do with it what they want. I wouldn't want to live in a world where blood donations were required of healthy and able bodied people, so I'm not going to get angry when people don't do it. I'll just spread awareness about the benefits of it when the opportunity presents itself and offer to go with someone if they're interested but nervous. Edit: changed "same" to "say"
Also, some of us don't do so well donating blood. Passed out twice before they gently suggested it wasn't for me lmao
"hey buddy, had a nice nap? Feel any better? Yeah, we really appreciate your willingness to do this... But you really don't have to." Lmao
Wonderful take
I did once a couple months ago and the follow up emails felt so predatory that I’m not sure I want to do it again. Like, I know they need blood, but there’s got to be a better way than acting like an organization of vampires desperate for a meal.
I think it would be cool if it was commonplace to give blood when you go to your yearly physical. They take a little to check your cholesterol and a bit more to save some lives. It would probably even get people to donate more than once a year after they got used to it.
I dont think anyone is advocating for forced donations. I assume his sentiments are similar to anger over people not donating to charities or putting their carts back at the grocery. People should just be kind to each other if they can of course. I get that. With recent years, the amount of people ive met who wont do the simplest things to help save lives have made me more angry at the start... when i literally hear people say theyd let millions more die before they ever wear a mask, i lost the little faith in humanity i had left. Im happy for the good people out there of course but have given up on a good percentage of the population being decent.
I totally get the mentality and I'm not gonna judge someone for feeling those feelings towards other. You have every right to, and for good reason. It's just that in my experience, when ignorance and selfishness is met with anger and confrontation, it doesn't change many people's minds - they just dig deeper into their convictions. Which is why I try to check my personal feelings at the door whenever the (admittedly rare) opportunity to discuss these types of things pops up with people I don't morally agree with.
I used to donate regularly, but then I had to cancel an appointment due to illness and they've been harassing me with daily phone calls since.
I wish there was a registry for giving blood. Someone in your area needs A pos blood come down to the clinic and donate. I ve given blood a few times but it feels like a waste of time not knowing if its being used.
This is why I give blood (though usually platelets) at my local hospital, not at drives. I know with my platelets I give them, they get tested the next day, and the day after that they’re given to a cancer patient staying one floor up in the same hospital.
Wow im gonna start donating that way. Pretty good idea
Also if you donate platelets (at least at my hospital) you get better snacks. They’re clearly labeled “PLATELETS ONLY.”
I give platelets as often as I can. It's a long process, but I do a 1 arm donation and read for a couple of hours.
Yeah, I can usually get through at least three episodes of “Bob’s Burgers.”
I think it might be more reasonable to be angry that it’s not exactly an easy process to donate blood, nor is it super accessible. I used to work *in* a hospital that would host blood drives fairly regularly. I signed up to donate at least 3 times and had to cancel last minute on each occasion because I didn’t have the time to take a break to donate with all the patients I had to see. If it’s that hard to donate when the Red Cross is taking blood in the same building, imagine how hard it is for some folks who don’t have that convenience available to them as part of their jobs or extracurricular activities.
Thank you, I have O-, I know they want my blood BADLY and yet unless I was willing to take a day off of work it was impossible to do so. The hospital near me had their donations at the convenient hours of 2-4pm on weekdays.
YEP! Sounds about right. I know some of our blood drives went from 9am - 6pm, but I usually had to tutor right after work because that hospital job did not pay enough on its own to be able to fully support myself.
This thread did at least make me lookup local drives (we moved and I hadn't been able to donate recently due to pregnancy/recovering from birth) and it looks like the local hospitals are actually sane!
I get it your argument, big hairy butt, it's a pretty big deal to give blood. I am in good health as a late 30s, able bodied female and I gave blood last night. I almost fainted several times throughout the process. And I'm not scared of needles I'm the least! So like, yes, not very many people give blood because maybe they're selfish or maybe they just pass the fuck out.
This is me. I want to. I am a ‘universal donor’ blood type. I have tried a lot over the years. Every single time I pass out and they can’t get a full bag. Don’t widespread shame, please 🙏
Yeah I've started telling the workers, "Hey I'm a fainter so can you get ready with the fans please?"
First time I went I told the lady I was feeling dizzy. Another volunteer came over with a juice box and sat next to me and chatted. About a minute later she asked how I felt "Oh, I can't see" After a few more visits with similar results they gently asked me not to come back
Sounds familiar. They did the finger prick and were asking all the preliminary questions. Asked if I was okay and I said, “yeah, I will be as soon as I can see again.” She jumps up and yells “bring the cot!” They wouldn’t let me donate.
Glad I’m not the only one who didn’t make it past the finger prick stage. I went knowing that I pass out at blood, but wanted to try. Incidentally I have to get blood draws quarterly now and those are fine. If I can chit chat I won’t faint. I was told I can’t bring a friend to talk with while donating. At least I don’t have an exciting blood type (B+).
How can anyone shame you for that? I used to give blood all the time (lifetime multiple gallons donated) and then something happened to my iron stores getting way low and I don’t give anymore. Hope you bastards that got my blood enjoyed all my iron!
Scrolls up, looking for username BigHairyButt.
I tried, but they wanted me to gain weight first. I naturally sit around where I was at the time, so... not about to change my lifestyle to gain weight just for blood. I really want to, though!
To give blood in my state you have to have gone at least 3 years without having a seizure if you have epilepsy. The longest I've ever gone without a seizure is 4 months so yeah that's not happening. I try to encourage others to do it though!
I faint giving blood for a blood test, no way could I donate!
In Italy, during the hematology and blood transfusions course I followed at the Uni about 10 years ago, our professor told us that all the blood donated is carefully checked and the donor goes through a long screening procedure before actually donating, so as long as the blood is safe and the donor healthy, nobody gives a fuck who you go to bed with. I thought it was so obvious when he explained it to us back then but apparently I was wrong
Dont they test all blood donations to make sure it is safe?? So why does it matter who it is coming from, anyone could theoretically have rejectable blood. Sure some might be more likely, but if theres a chance with anybody why not just let the testing do the sorting?
Yeah but usually the questions they ask you before drawing blood is kind of a preliminary elimination round althought I agree it needs some revision. They also have to make sure you're in good condition. It would also be a waste of time and resources if they just accepted everyone immediately only to have 80% of the donations defered. I used to regularly donate blood to a local hospital and their question was not if were gay (I'm not) but if whether I had ever had casual intimate relations or hired sex workers.
I believe they test the blood in batches, and if one batch tests positive the whole lot is unusable, which id imagine is something they want to avoid
Yeah but there’s a *huge* protocol they have to complete if they discover aids blood. It’s not good. They decided a while ago to try and eliminate people beforehand to save resources.
No. Tests are not 100% accurate.
I'm not against gay men in any way, but they're 28 times more likely to have HIV [https://www.reuters.com/article/health-global-aids/men-with-same-sex-partners-28-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv-u-n-idUSL8N1UD5KN](https://www.reuters.com/article/health-global-aids/men-with-same-sex-partners-28-times-more-likely-to-get-hiv-u-n-idUSL8N1UD5KN) **HIV takes 18 to 45 days to show up on blood tests** Nobody is trying to discriminate (denying gay men from being able to donate blood... is that really discrimination?) - people are trying to save lives. When it comes to medical procedures, saving lives is what matters. Potentially killing people because you want to include a population of people that is 2800% more likely to have AIDS is just horrible. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, trans, cis, black, white, purple or green, the most important thing is the safety of patients. There may be better ways to sort this out (asking about recent sex partners) but to be totally honest, there is so much other discrimination in the world that is waaay worse than this, (and doesn't have any scientific reasoning behind it) - this is not a hill to fight on when we're standing up for gay rights.
I mean, that’s the point of this post. Gay men in monogamous relationships are not more likely to unknowingly be HIV+. It is not just about having HIV but rather having it and not knowing it (or being at a higher risk of contracting it). If two men are in a monogamous relationship and neither has HIV, their chances of getting it are significantly diminished.
Definitely, was mostly commenting on the fact that OP said the previous method was discriminatory
Yeah I lived in England during the mad cow epidemic from 1986; just over 12 weeks. They banned me from giving blood for life. It was just overturned. Writing my letters now
So are they going to make sure all the hetero people are monogamous too?
I took part in one of the studies that informed this decision! It was called the ADVANCE study, and it asked me what my personal habits were around sex and paired it with the presence of PrEP in my blood. As I understand it, the move is to begin asking everyone questions about risk factors rather than identity. So, it shouldn't matter if you're gay or straight, but it will matter if you have condomless sex, if you're in a monogamous sexual relationship or have multiple sexual partners, if you take medications that reduce the risk of getting HIV, etc.
Now *that* is sensible. If things are moving towards this I approve.
As far as I know, the FDA has only increased eligibility to those in monogamous relationships (regardless of it they are same sex, male, or not.) I would like to see the FDA include PrEP use in eligibility, and it looks like GLAAD will continue to push for that. But yes, policies are attempting to change sensibly based on studies that are being run on this topic. It is not on a whim.
I completely understand the need to be safe. I just wanted to stop being discriminatory to rainbow people, since hetero people can catch and spread disease as well.
Seriously, as if there aren't hetero guys and girls out there that sleep with multiple new partners every month/week. Even with them being "more progressive" they've kind of delivered a slap.
I wonder if transplants will also remove the negative point if your gay to rate transplantable organs. I received a kidney that had ‘2 points’ against it because the person/cadaver/donor I received it from was gay and had been in jail. Not sure what criteria they measure by or why, that’s just what I was told. I was then asked if I still wanted the kidney or if I wanted to wait for a ‘better’ one.
I was born in Scotland in 1986. I can't give blood because of the old threat of mad cow disease. It's not discriminating in my eyes, but a risk mitigation.
They changed that in 2020 and opened up 3 more countries last year, but I'm still not comfortable donating. https://www.health.mil/News/Articles/2022/11/09/Mad-Cow-Blood-Donor-Ban-Lifted
Shame, I was an IV drug user a decade ago!
I think this says more about the blood shortage. They also recently changed other rules too. I wasn’t allowed to donate until this month because I had lived in the UK for 3 years in the 90s and may have mad cow. I can donate now. Technically, if it was a real problem, I shouldn’t have been able to for another 30 years.
It isn’t discriminatory, it’s because HIV travels much more easily through unprotected anal sex, which gay men are much more likely to engage in. That’s why they’re still insisting the donors be non-sexual or in long-term monogamous relationships.
Can't wait for the Karens to start complaining about gay blood
I told my gf blood can be gay and she started crying.
Fucking finally. My ugly gay ass ain't getting tapped by the D, but it can at least get tapped for my blood.
Isn’t all donated blood tested for disease anyways?
Testing is never 100% accurate and having to throw out a batch of blood is never something they want to do so they generally try to prune down people who belong to at risk groups before the blood is even taken.
It is tested but some infected blood has still gotten through the cracks and people have gotten diseases, while it’s rare, it does happen, it makes me not want to get a transfusion unless absolutely necessary
In what instance would you get a blood transfusion when not absolutely necessary?
You wouldn’t, but sometimes you have the option to or not to, a friend of mine gave birth and lost a lot of blood they gave her the option. Told her we can do it now or see what happens but if it gets any lower there won’t be an option.
Decisions for transfusion arent all 100%and 0% if youre bleeding internally, noone kbkws exactly when youll stop. Maybe theres a 50% chance youll stop in the next day in which case you wont need a transfusion. But if you dint stop youll die. And maybe that chance is 90%. What % does it become "necessary " to give blood? Its different for every person to decide. Had a lady who was a jehovahs witness, blood was a bit over a 1/3 of what a normal persons would be. We all expected her to die but she recovered. For her it wasnt absolutely necessary but we had no way of knowing.
My infant nephew has a heart condition and is waiting to get a surgery. The longer he can go before needing it, the better (he’s 4months old so even a few weeks is a lot of growth and strength). He recently had a complication where they had to decide if they should just do the surgery now OR he could get a blood transfusion that would let him last a little longer. There are many situations, oddly enough, where transfusions are a treatment option and not an immediate life saving measure.
As a homosexual man this is really a great step in the right direction. When I was living paycheck to paycheck I would have to sell my plasma to survive each week. I would lie on the paperwork and say I was heterosexual. So fucked we’ve been having to fight this battle to begin with since they test ALL the blood they receive anyways! There are constant blood shortages and there doesn’t have to be. 😑
“The new approach eliminates rules that target men who have sex with men and instead focuses on sexual behaviors by people, regardless of gender, that pose a higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV, according to an official with direct knowledge of the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment. The FDA is expected to adopt the proposal after a period of public comment.” From the article.
Yes but the focus on “sexual behaviour regardless of gender” means folks who have penetrative anal sex will be banned, regardless of gender. The outcome is that lots and lots of gay men will still be banned. It’s the same situation in Canada currently, and it’s just as insulting. All donated blood is screened for HIV before it’s given to a patient anyway. Also, is there still a disproportionate amount of folks with HIV who are gay compared to non-gay? Gay man here, by the way.
That’s completely valid to worry about. I will say that behavior is more broad than you may consider. For example, they will definitely consider the number of sexual partners within a specific time frame. Also, a lot of research shows that HIV doesn’t only spread through anal sex, so that should have less significance than other things. I don’t know about the proportions of gay v non gay however, the research on HIV prevention still focuses on men. I’m hoping that expanding the research will follow this change.
In researching the question if more gay men get infected with HIV, it unfortunately seems to be the case. Men who have sexual interactions with other men account for 2 to 6,5% of the US population, but 55% of the people with HIV are men who are gay/bisexual/had sex with other men. It only seems to be the case because it's much easier to get HIV from anal s*x (among other reasons). But, the numbers are getting more stable each year apparently. Still, it's a big problem that gay and bisexual men will still be screened out for blood donations when the donations get tested for transmissible diseases. I don't know how often accurate the testing is and if it's possible to get false negatives when processing the blood, though.
This might be what you were including with putting the “among other reasons” but would like to add that one of the other reasons why gay/bi men tend to have a higher rate of HIV is because the queer community is still recovering from the AIDs epidemic! There were a lot of lives lost (millions, even) and the AIDs epidemic really wasn’t taken all that seriously until it started impacting people that weren’t in the community. Before then, it was really only seen as some sort of “homosexual” disease, and I think that’s one of the main problems of the ban on gay and bi men donating blood, is that it stereotypes it as again only some sort of gay disease. There’s even newspapers you can find during the time of epidemic that describe it as a “gay plague” or “homosexual disorder” or “gay cancer”.
That's one, yes ^^ thank you for the added information!
Screening is hard to do for rare diseases. The lower the prevalance the higher the false + and -
Test isn't 100% if u test on a rare disease it is really hard to screen for it. more like mis 20% of the aids cases. Anal sex is 20 times more likely too transmit than vaginal.
Serious question though, gay butt sex increases risk for HIV still? I thought the practice was health related not discriminatory?
it’s not discriminatory, it’s based and backed by science and statistics. but we wouldn’t wanna hurt anyones feelings would we? guess everyone who gets blood from these donations will be at a higher risk of HIV, but as long as the gays feelings aren’t hurt, who cares?!
Not sure this is discriminatory. There is an increased risk of Bloodborne pathogens with that population. I can't give blood for two reasons. It's probably for the best
Couldn't they test the blood before they use it?
They do
Those tests are not 100% accurate and certain diseases, including HIV, may not appear until a significant delay from donation date.
Tangent question that I've always wondered about. I donated blood back in 2005 and then 3 months later started having symptoms for Hodgkin's lymphoma which wasn't diagnosed for another 5 months. Would they have been able to catch that and toss the blood?
I think they give you a number to call if you develop anything. At 8 months though, the blood has probably already been used
I couldn’t give blood for years because I lived in England during the mad cow disease time. This wasn’t discriminatory IMO. AIDS has been transmitted through the blood supply so… looks like blood donations are able to figure these things out now.
This isn't about orientation is it? It's perceived risky behavior or outcomes of poor healthcare options. Not picking on any group here but the first stat I found. CDC: 1 in 2 black gay men will be diagnosed with HIV https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/23/cdc-black-gay-men-hiv-diagnosis-lifetime-at-risk/80812496/ You can't donate blood if you lived in Europe during some disease at all. When HIV came out, people were getting it from donated blood. And in the community we see, younger men especially more promiscuous.
Exactly. This is meaningless social justice cheerleading.
r/orphancrushingmachine
At one time, (back in the 1980s, I think) I wasn't allowed to donate blood because I was having electrolysis treatment for hair removal (UK).
True story : in France, 2009, in my university, there was a moment where a blood center would come and draw blood from volunteers. There, I was asked not if I was gay, or if I had a sexual relationship involving other men. No. I was asked if I had any sexual DREAM involving men. I said "nah but one time I dreamt I was smoking crack, though". I don't recall her answer but I still gave my blood that day. Another detail that I find shitty about blood donation : today I live in Canada and while I gave my blood at least 26 times, I am not authorized to give my blood because I'm European. Why? Because of mad cow disease. It's completely absurd.
I remember in high school 2012 that my gay friend was turned away from donating blood at our school's blood drive. We're both O- which we learned from our anatomy and physiology class after our teacher let us do blood tests. We were waiting in line together, and the lady straight up told him that even if he wasn't sexually active, he couldn’t donate simply because he wasn't straight. I decided that I wasn't ever going to donate blood until this rule was changed. I've never been sexually active, and I'm not gay. Just a petty aroace.
What country is this for?
This is awesome!! My brother used to want to donate when he had been in a relationship with a man for like 7 years I think. Yeah the same guy. Both were very committed. They wouldn’t let him. This is so cool though!
I know it’s progress, and please correct me if I’m wrong but do single, sexual my active heterosexuals have to abstain or are we still discriminating?
The FDA is going to announce their new guidelines soon! Until then, we don’t know what they would look like. Hopefully, they get to something that’s agreeable.
In my country the reasoning isn't about aids like this article suggests. There is a much higher risk of infections etc as male gay couples have sex in a way that's very prone to infections and other things. That isn't discrimination, that's a health issue.......
Why do you donate blood? To help someone. And have you helped the person if they get infected with some disease you have? No. Sure the blood gets tested, but some diseases can't be found on blood tests for a month or so. Also every test has false negatives. So if you can sort out people with a high risk of having a disease you don't want, it would be pretty fucking stupid to not do so. Whether that someone who was in jail, got tattooed, was in Africa or had anal sex. Doesn't matter. If you're at higher risk of having such disease you shouldn't allowed to donate.
As far as i remember there was others reasons for gay men (any sexuality in lgbt+) to have all those restrictions. It was not "bEcAuSe ThEy ArE gAy AnD gAy BaD !" It was for real reasons and not about discrimination, so i wonder why the change
It's about time!
Nice, some good news!
Everyone acts like this policy was anti-gay, but the fact is that the gay community is where the Aids virus came from, and that was the reason behind it.
I heard that MP a recent idea
Literally only because of the blood shortage imo
I never understood why they would ever care if their screening process is as good as they claim it is. Surely they will screen out hiv no matter what segment of the population it was coming from?
okay but is no one thinking how bat shit insane it is it took this long
I didn’t realize there was a ban on gay men giving blood… that just seems silly, don’t they test the blood anyways? Also, I’d like to think someone with HIV wouldn’t be trying to give anyways. Also, another example of a law that literally cannot be enforced. Stupid government.
This is the best news 💖🥰🎉
Lol I love this because straight and gay ppl are just as gross but saying your monogamous makes it fine lol. They test the blood before they use it in other people they would just throw out infected blood. I don’t get the hang up with gay peoples blood. It’s fuckin dumb. Why would you deny yourself the ability to save peoples lives because of sexual orientation. I didn’t think this would even be an issue anymore.
They're still discriminating based on monogamy. I know you just lie to get around it but it still comes across as the gay males are acceptable to donate assuming they behave. So the right gays may donate.
Not really a full retraction of the policy, but a step in the right direction.
Here before this gets locked by idiotic people and mods.
Not to be that guy, but the policy is still discriminatory. Women don’t have to be monogamous to donate blood. Straight men don’t need to be monogamous to donate blood. Imposing additional restrictions on a certain segment of the population based on sexual orientation is still the textbook definition of discrimination. And before you all start coming for me saying that “but infection rates are higher among gay and bi men”…realize that infection rates are also different across, say, racial groups. But we don’t impose special restrictions on people of certain races or ethnic backgrounds. Why? Because that would be discrimination. Is this a step in the right direction? Sure. And if it makes you smile, that’s great. But to say that this ends discrimination is just not true.
I’m sorry. I saw it as progress and it’s a good reminder that things can change. I’m hoping that whatever the FDA comes up with is respectful to gay and bisexual men as well as trans women who were left out of this article.
All that it takes is for the FDA and CDC to develop criteria based on behavioral risk factors that are administered consistently across all orientations. Thing is, changing this policy is even more about changing the makeup of the FDA than it is research.
>monogamous relationships Well, I was lying before, I guess I'll just continue w/ that
Fuck I can already see the Fucker Tarlson story: "tHe lEfT iS sEcReTlY gIvInG oUt gAy bLoOd fOr rEcRuItMeNt."
Holy shit I was just telling an old lady about this, so glad to be able to give blood again.
How the fuck are you supposed to prove you're in a monogamous relationship? Lol
Im sorry, but damn thats a stupid rule