Pangloss Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 This is an odd story at first blush, but it may be that both sides have a valid point here. The problem apparently arises not so much from the fact that they don't want people with HIV giving blood (which is obviously something nobody wants), but rather from the fact that people who have a higher risk of having HIV are not allowed to donate. Specifically, gay men are denied. And therein, of course, lies the rub, because that's discrimination, or at least it appears to be. The article below talks about one university in California that has banned blood donation from campus because of its anti-discrimination policy. But I'm somewhat confused by this, because I've been told by Red Cross people in person, when giving blood myself, that the blood IS TESTED for things like HIV. So why do the pre-screening? Is the test less than certain? I don't know but I think the answer to that question could have a major impact on the issue here. Here's an article talking about it: http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_8149514
NeonBlack Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 If you donate blood, they'll tell you that the tests can fail, which is why they want to elimate all high risk potential donors. Also with the possibility of false positives, if your blood tests positive, even falsely, you'll be asked not to donate again. Maybe this seems like a trivial difference, but they never said gay people can't donate. They say you can't donate "if you've had sex with a man who's had sex with another man," or something like that.
Pangloss Posted February 5, 2008 Author Posted February 5, 2008 I don't remember them saying that, but I was probably too focused on the needle. (grin) But if that's case, that the tests can fail, then it sounds like some sort of precautionary exam is necessary. But isn't that question basically the same thing as asking if they're gay?
Daecon Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 I hope they also ban anyone who's South African, Nigerian or Indian then too. According to Wikipedia: Sub-Saharan Africa remains by far the worst-affected region, with an estimated 21.6 to 27.4 million people currently living with HIV. Two million [1.5–3.0 million] of them are children younger than 15 years of age. More than 64% of all people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa, as are more than three quarters of all women living with HIV. In 2005, there were 12.0 million [10.6–13.6 million] AIDS orphans living in sub-Saharan Africa 2005. South & South East Asia are second-worst affected with 15% of the total. AIDS accounts for the deaths of 500,000 children in this region. South Africa has the largest number of HIV patients in the world followed by Nigeria. India has an estimated 2.5 million infections (0.23% of population), making India the third largest country with HIV patients. In the 35 African nations with the highest prevalence, average life expectancy is 48.3 years—6.5 years less than it would be without the disease. Edit: *reads next post* Oh yes, I see they do. Well at least they're being consistent.
timo Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 They do say gay people cannot donate (except if you assume the gays not having had sex in the last 30 years are a relevant group): HIV' date=' AIDS You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV. You are at risk for getting infected if you: * have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor * are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977 * have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977 * have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above * received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia * were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977. * since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or * had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries.[/quote'] As a first impression, these criteria are a very, very broad filter chosen for simplicity rather than actual sense (e.g. using a needle to inject something does not seem like a HIV risk by itself, it becomes a risk in practices like needle sharing). A little above that, it reads You may not donate if you received a blood transfusion in certain countries in Africa since 1977. This requirement is related to concerns about rare strains of HIV that are not consistently detected by all current test methods. So that does indeed sound as if the test is not fail-safe. Source: http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html
Daecon Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 But isn't that question basically the same thing as asking if they're gay? Yes. Yes it is, but they bureaucratise the wording like that so they can pretend that oh no, they not really prejudiced against gay people, just "promiscuous" gay people. Even the monogamous couples of gay people.
Pangloss Posted February 5, 2008 Author Posted February 5, 2008 Do they allow African Americans to donate blood? They have a higher incidence of sickle cell disease, do they not? What is the difference?
NeonBlack Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 I also thought of this. In America, black women have the 2nd highest rate of HIV infection (behind gay men of course). I imagine it's much easier to screen for sickle cell anemia than gawd knows how many strains of HIV there are now. You can say have had sex with another man without the word "gay." It's hard to say black without the word "black." Either that, or the HIV rate of American blacks is so far behind that of gay men that the numbers are insignificant.
Daecon Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 What's the total number of gay men in America compared to the total number of African-heritage people in America?
Dak Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 I wonder why they don't just irradiate the blood? HIV and white-blood-cells would be denatured (by DNA degredation), but all you're after is the red-blood-cells, which lack DNA and thus should survive certain wavelengths of irradiation, i'd have thought? ---- Are gay men actually still high-risk for HIV? I didn't think they were anymore.
Glider Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 It's not just red cells they're after. Packed red cells is only one product. There's also products such as whole blood, plasma, defibrinated plasma, platelet poor plasma, fresh frozen plasma, granulocyte concentrates, lymphocytes, monocytes, and platelet concentrates (and others).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now