Discussion: Medical Lab Technologist On Why Gay Males Can't Donate Blood

RideOrDie

Quote:

I have a degree in medical laboratory technology and worked in a blood bank for a few years, so I am familiar with the number of restrictions in place to protect our blood supply. After the work that I've done there, and the focus that every person had for their work, I would never have a concern in the United States taking a blood transfusion.

I begin by saying this because I want to emphasize the thought process behind why restrictions like this. Laboratory technicians are extremely statistics and numbers driven. There are an extremely high number of restrictions in place on the blood supply and every one of them is in place due to the pure statistics of the matter.

There are blanket bans in place for several things. For example if you spent more than 3 months in the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1996, you can't donate. Yes, even vacation. That ban is in place, spanning 16 years, as a precautionary measure against "mad cow".

And this is just one of many restrictions. The list is long and sometimes complicated, but all of it is in place to eliminate groups which are at higher risk.

Now all of this lead up, is coming to the "gay ban"... which more specifically is a ban on males that have sex with males. Meaning that if somebody has sex in prison but isn't really gay, yes that still counts. And homosexuality is not just about sex, so a virgin homosexual male is a fantastic donor. Moreover it is not a ban on gays in general as lesbians are some of the absolute best donors out there... as a population they have some of the lowest rates of STDs.

However specifically males that have sex with males (MSM) have a far greater statistical probability of having many sexually transmitted diseases.[/B] This is not me arbitrarily bad-mouthing the group, it's just a statistical fact. The reasons behind this are many, complicated, and nuanced... and I'm not saying anything about that aside from the pure numbers.

Now all of this said, we do test every single donation thoroughly. However, there are two factors to consider here.

First off, the most difficult infections to detect are early infections. Cases where the person themselves probably doesn't even know that they have the disease yet. Again looking at the statistics, the highest rates of new infections are among MSM.

Secondly, the test that we use are extremely accurate. So even though it is almost certain that we would detect the disease... we run into other problems right away.

The first problem is that samples are generally not tested individually. The tests are so sensitive that you can take the blood from 10 people, mix it together, and then test that set as a group. So rather than having to do the test 10 times, you can do it once. This saves money and time without reducing accuracy.

However, what happens if one of those 10 people is infected? HIPAA is extremely heavy-handed regarding identification of patients with HIV (rightly so). So all 10 of those donations are going to be throwing out rather than identifying the person without their permission. And all 10 of those people are no longer going to be able to donate.

Secondly, even if that wasn't an issue, that blood goes through dozens of hands. Accidental needle sticks are rare, but not unheard of. So that blood is still a risk. So we want to reduce the chance.

And this trend of higher STD rates isn't isolated to HIV. Many others as well.

So all this said...if we ignored all of that and made the exception... What is gained? MSM are a small population. Certainly smaller than other blanket banned groups.

Those factors are weighed, which led to where we are. So even though I'm a supporter of gay equality and rights, I can't agree that MSMs should have an exception to something solely based on statistics. The rate of new infections needs to come down closer to the national population levels.

And again, it's not a gay thing... Lesbians are fantastic donors because their STD rate is actually way below the general population.

(Sources on request, on mobile and it's a hassle. Sorry for any typed errors, this was mainly a speech-to-text)
Edit:

It should be noted, that the FDA is moving forward with changing this from a permanent ban, to a "Last 12 months" ban. The most likely time an infection can be missed is early. After 12 months without having sex with another male, any possible infection would have set in enough to be easier to detect. They've continued research and are comfortable with detection rates at that point, which is great.

I'm not certain on the details of when this will finish rolling out however. In fact, this may not even roll all the way down to blood banks for various logistical and legal reasons (international regulations for example in some cases). This is a very recent change (last few months) and it's still in the works.

So for right now, it's still banned. After this takes effect, any MSM within 12 months will remain unchanged. However, any male that hasn't had sex with a male in 12 months will be eligible.

source

Again, this is very new and it takes time for changes to take effect... especially in the blood bank field (they love consistency and routine). However, in the coming months/years this should allow some to donate again.

Source

What do you think?

Speezy

Quote:

which more specifically is a ban on males that have sex with males. Meaning that if somebody has sex in prison but isn't really gay, yes that still counts.

mess

PriceyandLicey

Quote:

Originally posted by RideOrDie

The first problem is that samples are generally not tested individually. The tests are so sensitive that you can take the blood from 10 people, mix it together, and then test that set as a group. So rather than having to do the test 10 times, you can do it once. This saves money and time without reducing accuracy.

However, what happens if one of those 10 people is infected? HIPAA is extremely heavy-handed regarding identification of patients with HIV (rightly so). So all 10 of those donations are going to be throwing out rather than identifying the person without their permission. And all 10 of those people are no longer going to be able to donate.

Interesting. I didn't know this.

Otter

Yes, I read about this a while back & I'm OK with it. Although in the UK it's a one year ban from the point of intercourse, not a blanket ban

Its sad but the community needs to clean up Tbh.

Skins

This is common knowledge idk why the gay community is so up and arms about donating blood, it's definitely not changing

PrinceLightning

I didn't knew some things he was talking about. And yes, I agree. They should do everything they can to make sure the blood is ok.

Sazare

Quote:

The first problem is that samples are generally not tested individually. The tests are so sensitive that you can take the blood from 10 people, mix it together, and then test that set as a group. So rather than having to do the test 10 times, you can do it once. This saves money and time without reducing accuracy.

However, what happens if one of those 10 people is infected? HIPAA is extremely heavy-handed regarding identification of patients with HIV (rightly so). So all 10 of those donations are going to be throwing out rather than identifying the person without their permission. And all 10 of those people are no longer going to be able to donate.

This didn't sound right to me because I know the Red Cross says they notify anyone whose donation comes back positive for HIV or any other infectious disease they test for, so I decided to read the further and found this comment

Quote:

I have donated blood for years, probably a decade or more. I am married, heterosexual, monogamous, spouse is too, no risky behaviors (no drugs, no tattoos, never vacation outside the US). Pretty boring really. One day out of the blue I get a letter saying my blood tested positive for antibodies of a virus I won't name, which resulted in a lifetime ban. there was no way to appeal ... Very concerned for my health, I visited a doctor, got tested, and was told I had a clean bill of health. Nowhere in the letter did they mention my blood was tested with others, or that these results might otherwise be unrelated to me personally

wtf. So if your blood just happens to be pooled in the same group as a person with HIV they'll tell you you have it?

PrinceLightning

Quote:

Originally posted by EveryoneLovesMe

Why do you all even want to donate that anyway

It's gross.

They need to test everyone though to make sure no one has any diseases.

How in this world is it gross? People need blood for blood transfusion. You can save lives...