Why can't i donate blood?

Pursuant to the CDC:


Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs

The Numbers

New HIV Infections
•In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.

•Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

•Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.

•Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.


HIV and AIDS Diagnosesc

•In 2011, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 62% of 49,273 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.

•At the end of 2010, of the estimated 872,990 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 440,408 (50%) were gay and bisexual men. Forty-seven percent of gay and bisexual men living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 31% were black/African American, and 19% were Hispanic/Latino.

•In 2011, gay and bisexual men accounted for 52% of estimated AIDS diagnoses among all adults and adolescents in the United States. Of the estimated 16,694 AIDS diagnoses among gay and bisexual men, 39% were in blacks/African Americans; 34% were in whites; and 23% were in Hispanics/Latinos.

•By the end of 2010, an estimated 302,148 gay and bisexual men with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic, representing 48% of all deaths of persons with AIDS.


Prevention Challenges

The large percentage of gay and bisexual men living with HIV means that, as a group, gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of being exposed to HIV. Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV and that HIV prevalence increased with increasing age.

Many gay and bisexual men with HIV are unaware they have it. Even though the NHBS study showed that the overall percentage of gay and bisexual men with HIV who knew of their HIV infection increased from 56% in 2008 to 66% in 2011, there were still many who did not know they had HIV. Among those infected, only 49% of young gay and bisexual men aged 18 to 24 years knew of their infection, whereas 76% of those aged 40 and older were aware of their HIV infection. Fifty-four percent of black/African American gay and bisexual men knew of their infection, compared with 63% of Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men and 86% of white gay and bisexual men. People who don’t know they have HIV cannot get the medicines they need to stay healthy and may infect others without knowing it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that all gay and bisexual men get tested for HIV at least once a year. Sexually active gay and bisexual men may benefit from more frequent testing (e.g., every 3 to 6 months).

Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in gay and bisexual men. Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. For sexually active gay and bisexual men, the most effective ways to prevent transmitting or becoming infected with HIV are to be on antiretroviral medications (to either treat or prevent infection) and to correctly use a condom every time for anal or vaginal sex. Gay men are at increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and CDC recommends that all sexually active gay and bisexual be tested at least annually for these infections and obtain treatment, if necessary.

Having more sex partners compared to other men means gay and bisexual men have more opportunities to have sex with someone who can transmit HIV or another STD. Similarly, among gay men, those who have more partners are more likely to acquire HIV.

Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services.

---------- Post added 18th Jun 2014 at 08:11 PM ----------

Because I always believe education is a wonderful thing, here is a list of countries who have health policies regaring MSM blood donation policies, with deferral time periods.

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Same here -- I was born in Germany in 1996. Until they find a way to detect carriers of the disease, I'll never be able to donate blood. Makes me really sad.

Anyhow, OP, as long as you know you're clean I'd go with what others have said and lie. That law is bogus.

 

I used to give blood, but had to stop when I became sexually active. Had the argument with the blood transfusion service, but it got me knowhere.

I would caution against lying (tempting as it may be). I understand if you give blood and they somehow find out you have lied they will dump the whole batch collected that day.. from everyone. Blood stocks are too low for that to happen.

 

^Yes, blood stocks are low. Given how ridiculously unlikely it is that they'd find out he lied, it's better to help increase those stocks.

 

Sorry, but I don't agree. Yes, it is unlikely they'll find out, but I wouldn't even take the chance.

 

They don't want our blood because it's rainbow colored

 

The situation can be easily assessed: If 1000 clean guys who have homosexual sex donate blood, is the amount donated greater than the amount thrown out when they're caught?

I don't know the figures, but I'm willing to bet everything I own that it is. It is just not something that is found out. You don't have a PI tailing you who's going to go inside after and tell them. Your boyfriend isn't going to come in and have sex with you on the floor.

 

But, in reality, that's not how it works.

I simply don't like the idea of any blood being thrown away, ever. It's too precious to be having it dumped, for any reason and I think other donors would be mighty pissed off with us for bending the rules, should it ever get out that we were the reason. We certainly don't need to give right wing loonies another excuse to 'bash the queers'.

The chances of being found out are low, I totally agree and many times I've been tempted to say fuck the rules, I'll lie and donate again anyway, but I've always resisted. Besides, I'm probably on some banned donors list after my spat with the blood transfusion service.

I hope the ridiculous rule will be changed eventually, so the many of us who would like to donate blood can do so without lying. Until then, I personally won't.

If Caroline Lucas is campaigning for the lifiting of the UK ban, I'll definitely support it.

 

The net result is more blood getting to those who need it. That's never wrong. And if people have to break the law to do what's right, more power to them. Us.

 

In actuality, they should ban anyone who has had anal sex within the past 12 months, since that's actually the problem they're concerned about. I suppose it's "easier" to single out gay men since they're more likely to engage in the act. But, considering that many heterosexuals also engage in anal sex, that's what they should list as grounds for exclusion. This way they don't ostracize gay men.

Anal sex comes with many health risks due to the high probability of coming into contact with fecal. Infections such as helicobacter pylori and Hepatitis A (if fecal enters the digestive tract) and most of all HIV can develop. I personally think they should specify the sex act, not the group likely to engage in it. Seems to me that would be safer because they'd cover more ground. But I suppose that makes too much sense... :dry:

 

Being LGBT our blood is full of sadistic particles and unholy heeby-geebys so it's just to stop the gay from spreading from us to them (which is clearly going to happen if we give blood).. It is after 12 months of no inter corse that the gay is purged by holy Christ and you can safety give non satan blood.. (Sarcasm was intended in this passage so not intended to offended)

 

'Queer blood is all contagious like'
- a homophobic hillbilly

this is in jest, if you can't tell.

 

Your analysis is incorrect as it fails to take into consideration the increased risk that violating the safety protocol causes. While the OP might be certain that his behavior has not subjected him to the risk of contracting HIV he cannot be sure of his BF. People do cheat, forget or don't even realize potential risks. The following analysis is based on the data Laelia presented above.

Prevalence of HIV infections among gays and MSM: 18%
Probability of a person not knowing they have HIV: 33%
Probability of a false negative in testing: 0.5% (could not find an actual number so using a typical test estimate)

Let's further assume that the men who know they have HIV do not even attempt to donate blood so the probability of HIV contaminated blood reaching the patient is:

0.18x0.33x0.005=0.000297 which is 0.0297%

Now let's further assume that gays and MSM would donate blood at the same rate as the general population. There are 13.6m units of blood donated each year in the US and the male gay and MSM population is estimated to be 2% of the general population. Combining this information with the calculation above we can estimate by how many people would get HIV if there was no restriction on gays and MSM.

13.6m x 0.02 x 0.000297 = 80.784

So roughly 80 people per year would get HIV annually through donated blood if there were no restrictions for gays and MSM. Now granted, this number is just a back of the envelope calculation and in itself it is meaningless BUT it highlights the logic that is driving the deferral period for gays and MSM. To make it more meaningful, let's calculate the same number for the non-gays and MSM population.

There are 260m persons over the age of 13 and 1.3m people with HIV infection of which roughly half are non-gay and non-MSM. Out of these 1.3m infections roughly 12% are not diagnosed (bear in mind this includes also gays and MSM so the 12% is likely to be a large overestimate for straights). Of the 1.3m infections roughly half are on gays and MSM.

(1.3m/260m) x 0.12 x 0.5 x 13.6m x 0.98 x 0.005 = 19.992

Now we have numbers that we can compare. So gays and MSM represent a 4 times greater risk than non-gays and non-MSM in terms of HIV risk. There are two contributing factors: 1) greater prevalence and 2) lower awareness of infection. Easing restrictions on gays and MSM would increase the risks significantly while at the same time they would bring in only a very small pool of potential blood donors.

In this analysis the most crucial aspect is the false negative rate that was assumed to be 0.5%. I was not able to find exact number and I'm sure the number varies depending on the test. However, I did find out that the false negative rate is very significant and much larger than that in new infections. This is probably the reason for why there is deferral on man-on-man anal sex and why it's so long.

Summa summarum, in my opinion this question should be decided on scientific basis and it should not be seen as an equality issue unless there is no compelling scientific evidence to suggest that lifting restrictions would not cause undue risk to the public.

---------- Post added 18th Apr 2016 at 01:43 AM ----------

This is false logic. There are a few good reasons to target man-on-man anal sex while ignoring the man-on-woman anal. The first reason is that the probability of a MSM having HIV is significantly higher than a non-MSM having HIV. The second reason is that MSM constitute a fairly small minority among the all potential donors so restricting their ability donate does not hurt the overall availability of donors. If anal sex in general was on the restricted list a considerably larger pool of people would not be eligible and most of those people would not have elevated risk of having HIV.

 

The stunt of ''why can't gays give blood'' doesn't really work and borders on the ridiculous. The reason is that this is entirely self-centered and irresponsible. There is no ban on ''gays'' donating blood but on men who have sex with men who are donating blood. What is fascinating is this idea that donating blood is some form of natural right. Thing is, it isn't, but what there is, is the right of people left with no choice but to accept that donation of blood for their own survival and it isn't uncommon for persons receiving blood transfusions to end up being HIV positive.

There is also this chauvinistic model which seems to stereotype ''gay'' with men only. Lesbians are a very low-risk category group and they can donate blood without problems. A straight woman who is a prostitute however would not be allowed to donate blood.

Honestly looking at most of the comments I get the impression that most are far more interested in themselves and their status rather than the actual act of donating blood, which is meant to be an act to help others. If someone truly cares about the persons they are helping, they'd never put them at risk, no matter how insignificant that risk chance could be.

At the end of the day inability to donate blood is something you can do without, it's certainly not a 'fun activity' and is being fought on the wrong terms since this is focused entirely with the goal of ending perceived discrimination notwithstanding the desire to donate blood or not. Yet this is scientifically proven: it is not discrimination because it does not focus on sexuality. Instead the what matters is sexual activity, that is why gay men tend to fail on qualifying for donating blood.

You can know that you are not HIV positive (in some cases, you could be actually mistaken without even knowing). However blood donation is a very precious and delicate thing. That sort of argument of being 'clean' won't convince guys to engage in bareback sex with you for example, the guys who do engage in bareback sex generally want it to begin with and take the risk for the perceived idea of increased pleasure or curiosity, not your assurances. You can be right about not having HIV but that other vulnerable person has no way of knowing that, and it is plain selfishness to use bystanders who need that blood for the sake of defying discrimination which was never there to begin with.

Although blood today is screened, it is still extremely irresponsible to lie - why would you add to the likelihood of contamination, wasting time, money and blood by not reducing the risk from the beginning?

 

*necroing intensifies*

 

Because people are homophobic pieces of garbage who care little about anyone other than themselves

 

This shit is so 2014

 

Because gay men were more at risk of catching HIV in the 80s and they had no way to test it, so they banned us. However, now, they do have ways to test it. (They already test every blood sample anyway)

This method is outdated now because it stops people who are basically risk free (monogamous gay men) while letting risky people donate (people who have unprotected intercourse). Well, they better not complain about blood shortage if they refuse perfectly healthy blood.

I did donate a few times, because I'm not yet disqualified by their criteria. However, I'll be sad when I can no longer give blood. My father gives blood every time he can and my grandfather did the same, so I kind of want to do the same thing.

(Justin Trudeau is looking at repealing this law, though. I gotta give credit to the man for that, at least.)

 

Because legalized discrimination is fine as long as it doesn't cause too much uproar. There's still plenty of unbalance in the law that gets completely ignored because nobody makes a big deal out of it, and chances are it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Because many blood donating laws are dumb. I wasn't able to give blood at my school's last blood drive because my mother re-pierced one of my ears within the past year. It would've been fine if I did it professionally, but nah. Although A. my mother is an LPN, so she knows about sterilizing etc. and B. according to my mom, my hole from the first piercing was still open, so it was basically like I didn't even re-pierce it, just put an earring in again for the first time in years. But, as I normally say in these circumstances, c'est la vie. :dry:

But yea, I don't quite understand why instead of determining STD stuff via blood tests and calling it good they ask if you've had sexual relations with someone of the same sex to determine it? Because sexually active heterosexuals (or anyone who's never had sex with the same sex) aren't immune to STDs, man. They aren't.