Life long ban from donating blood in the US

[padren]

On my way to get coffee today I did something I've never done sober - walked into a church for something other than a wedding or funeral, in this case because there was a blood drive.

 

I filled out all the forms, and on the one question "have you ever had sexual contact with another male, ever in your lifetime, even once" I checked yes as, I had once. I was asked some followup questions "was that a one time occurrence?" Yes... "Is that something you'll repeat?" No. It was the only question that required any conversation as based on every other question I was pretty much the ideal donor.

 

And.... that one answer equates to a life long ban - I am not allowed to ever give blood in the United States. I was told by the individual that he was sorry, and that most people including himself consider the restriction ridiculous and that there is a lot of effort going into repealing that and hope to within the next ten years.

 

I am an organ donor on my driver's license but I guess they'll have to drain them dry first when they take them so to ensure no one catches the "evil" that flows through my veins.

Is there any rational reason for this? Do the majority of people just lie on that question?

 

 

The irony is I would not even walk into a church for any reason just a few years ago - I still don't agree with organized religion, and consider the Catholic Church specifically to do more harm than good (in my opinion [just sharing my perspective, not trying to debate the argument or assert other's should agree]), but one of Obama's speeches turned me around with regards to the idea that many religious organizations wish to and do contribute to do important charity work and no two people are so different that if they are both trying to do something good that they cannot work together.

They were hosting a blood drive, which is something I support and so I felt I should meet them half way (instead of wait for a non-religious drive in my area when donations are needed now anyway) not because I support their organization but I do support the cause they are sponsoring.

 

But, despite no tattoos, prostitutes, needles, medications, orgies, risky geographical adventures and even being straight (not bi) I am banned for life due to a single event in my late teens over a decade and a half ago.

 

Am I wrong for considering this completely insane when we have blood drives specifically because we need donors so we can um, save lives?

[Pangloss]

Thanks for trying.

 

The Wikipedia has a write-up about the controversy surrounding this restriction here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_controversy

 

Europe apparently has the same restriction (according to the article), as does Canada.

 

According to the article there's a gap between reception of HIV and display (testability) of it that can range as high as six months. So one would think that it would be logical to ask whether the donor has had sex with another man within the past six months. Of course that doesn't rule out needle-sharers.

 

The real question in my mind is what does this say about testing? Is not all blood checked? Is it checked but the tests aren't quite up to snuff? I don't know, and these seem like good questions to me.

[insane_alien]

its to do with the life span of the blood.

 

if you took the time to test it before it was used then you'd by trying to shove a congealed lump through the transfusion needle into the patient.

 

a sample is taken from all donations and tested. if it turns out to be dodgy, the blood has laready been used and bad luck to the person who got it.

 

the questions are there to minimize the amount of bad blood they get.

[padren]

According to the article there's a gap between reception of HIV and display (testability) of it that can range as high as six months. So one would think that it would be logical to ask whether the donor has had sex with another man within the past six months. Of course that doesn't rule out needle-sharers.

It was up to six months when the lifetime ban was passed. With the testing they do now it is only 12 days for HIV.

The real question in my mind is what does this say about testing? Is not all blood checked? Is it checked but the tests aren't quite up to snuff? I don't know, and these seem like good questions to me.

 

All blood is checked, the only risk is if someone became infected within the last 12 days which could introduce the virus into the donated blood undetected. I actually have no idea what the window is for comparable tests for other blood borne diseases, such as hepatitis or such.

 

What I found so bothersome is it was a question asking if you have ever even once in your entire lifetime had such contact. I honestly got the feeling that the person who checked my form wish I had lied.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

its to do with the life span of the blood.

 

if you took the time to test it before it was used then you'd by trying to shove a congealed lump through the transfusion needle into the patient.

 

a sample is taken from all donations and tested. if it turns out to be dodgy, the blood has laready been used and bad luck to the person who got it.

 

the questions are there to minimize the amount of bad blood they get.

 

According to this article it appears the blood is tested before use - although the tests favor false positives:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation#Blood_testing