Gay Activists Versus The Red Cross

[realtraveller]

Gay activist groups are trying to keep the Red Cross from setting up blood donation centers on various college campuses. The controversy stems from the FDA rule (which the Red Cross supports) that bans men who've had sex with men from donating blood for life. The FDA says the ban is designed to keep HIV infected blood out of the blood supply.

While blood can be and is tested for HIV, there are occassionally errors of a false negative. That is, HIV-infected blood that tests negative for HIV. HIV can be detected reliably in blood within a few weeks of infection.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-nation

I reason it out this way.

First, I don't believe that either the FDA or the Red Cross adopted this policy with the intent only to discriminate against gay men. I think they are doing it out of an abundance of caution.

Second, college campuses are a good source of young, usually healthy blood donors.

The Red Cross needs blood and wouldn't turn away donors without a very good reason. Just last weekend a bulletin went out on the radio here begging anyone with O negative blood to donate as the Red Cross was almost out.

If HIV infected blood were transfused and infected someone else, it would be the Red Cross who would be liable to the tune of millions of dollars. Perhaps the gay activist groups would sign an indemnity taking the liability for damages in a lawsuit on themselves to pay and relieving the Red Cross of responsiblity? (Yeah, I didn't think so).

The Red Cross policy isn't perfect. They allow women who've had sex with a bisexual man to donate again in one year.

What is the greater good? Is it really just discrimination? There are others who can't donate either. People who've had cancer, people with anemia...

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Considering that last I heard heterosexual women made up the fastest-growing group of new HIV diagnoses, I think they should ban ALL people who have sex with men from donating. That leaves straight men and lesbians for our blood supply.

The rule used to make sense, but statistically it doesn't any more.

[erik_kosberg]

realtraveller said

First, I don't believe that either the FDA or the Red Cross adopted this policy with the intent only to discriminate against gay men. I think they are doing it out of an abundance of caution.

It's a very fine line.

realtraveller said

The Red Cross policy isn't perfect. They allow women who've had sex with a bisexual man to donate again in one year.

Would it be perfect if they did ban such women? What about the (strong) possibility that a fair number of men who have sex with women are not entirely honest about their sexual histories?

mjfrombuffalo said

...I think they should ban ALL people who have sex with men from donating.

Clearly an abundance of caution, and in doing so we could borrow from Kathy's reasoning and say that there was no intent only to discriminate against those people. But we should go one step further. Straight men and lesbians might have had sex with women who were not entirely honest about their sexual histories and/or sharing of needles.

That leaves us with a pool of potential donors limited to virgins. Or, more accurately, people who say that they're virgins.

[drmomentum[$]]

Aren't they trying to raise awareness about what they see as an inaccurate stereotype? The link is not working for me.

If their intention was to subvert the rule, they could just lie about their sex lives. But it seems to me this is an attempt to raise awareness.

[magenta321]

I really hate to think about this...

When do most people experiment with free love? College.

When do most people start having sex without condoms for the first time? College.

Sigh.

I had friends in college who admittedly donated blood so they could get a "free HIV test."

The Red Cross is not and cannot be perfect. They seem to be using stats out of the 1980s though...

I think that minority women are the ones with the greatest amt of new infection if I'm not mistaken.

[realtraveller]

The article didn't state the statistics on which populations are most likely to be infected with HIV but last I read it was gay men.

Organizations like people act in their own best self interest. The Red Cross needs blood. One of their primary missions is getting blood donors. They wouldn't turn away any group of potential donors without a good reason.

The statistics must bear out that gay men are more likely infected with HIV than heterosexual men or women. They also must know that a certain (hopefully tiny) percentage of blood is going to test with a false negative for HIV. They also know that HIV doesn't appear on blood tests for a few weeks after exposure.

What really is more important? That the blood supply be as safe as scientifically possible or that gay men be permitted to donate so they don't feel left out?

The decision on whether it makes good public health policy to keep gay men's blood out of the supply should be based on science, not pressure from activists.

[realtraveller]

See: http://www.redcross.org/services/bio...0_557_,00.html

Other ineligible to donate due to HIV concerns are:

Prostitutes

People who were born in a number of African countries and anyone who has had sex with people born in those countries.

IV and needle drug users

[erik_kosberg]

realtraveller said

The article didn't state the statistics on which populations are most likely to be infected with HIV but last I read it was gay men.

I'll try to find a link somewhere but I think that's no longer true; that black women are now statistically most likely to be infected (maybe get infected, i.e. new cases more likely to be black women and old cases more likely to be gay men)?

[drmomentum[$]]

I'm not convinced that these people (the vast majority of whom are not HIV infected) should be criticised for trying to start a public conversation about the reinforcement of an outdated stereotype.

I'm also not convinced that this attempt to shine light on the outdatedness of the stereotype is actually putting the blood supply at risk.

And I'd have to see the numbers to know whether it really is in the Red Cross' best interests to turn away all men who have had sex with other men since 1977, for life.

BTW - I believe the population that sees the highest percentage of HIV infection is IV drug users, not men who have slept with men. So, your info is likely out of date.

-JP

[pippadaisy[$]]

Old, stupid policies:

In North America, although there has been an overall slowing in the increase in AIDS incidence, there has been substantive variation in the populations affected. For example, in the United States, the increase in AIDS incidence in the 1990s has been greatest for women compared to men, blacks and Hispanics compared to whites, and persons infected through heterosexual contact compared to those infected through other modes of transmission. As a result of these trends, AIDS incidence in 1995 was 6.5 times greater for blacks and 4 times greater for Hispanics than for whites, 20 percent of persons diagnosed with AIDS were women, and 15 percent were infected heterosexually.

Estimates from statistical models and data from several cohort studies demonstrate that HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM) has declined from the very high levels of the early 1980s. In Canada, HIV incidence among MSM has dropped from about 5 to 10 percent per year in the early 1980s to an estimated 1 to 2 percent per year in the early 1990s. The HIV seroprevalence rate among MSM attending STD clinics in the U.S. fell from over 30 percent in the late 1980s to 24 percent in 1995. However, the prevalence of HIV infection among MSM remains high in almost all areas of North America.

AIDS cases related to heterosexual contact represent an increasing proportion of cases in North America. Heterosexual contact is the most common mode of transmission among women diagnosed with AIDS in the U.S., and has doubled as a proportion of female AIDS cases in Canada since 1991. While a large proportion of these cases reported sexual contact with an IDU, a substantial proportion of women who acquired their infection heterosexually were unaware of their partner's risk status. In addition to injection drug use, the use of crack cocaine in the United States has been associated with an increased risk of HIV transmission through sexual contact in both urban areas and the rural South.

http://www.cdpc.com/5northam.htm

[soxfan[$]]

The old policy was enacted in the first years of AIDS, when no one was yet sure of the cause. To keep it in place now, and to automatically ban any gay man from giving blood, even if he practices safe sex and has ever had only one partner, is unfair and stupid to boot.

[soxfan[$]]

Oh, and despite the depictions on "Queer as Folk" and "The L Word" (which are just TV shows), homosexuality does not automatically equal promiscuity and/or drug use.

[phoenixx]

In this era of promiscuity, sexual experimentation, different types of sexual preferences, potential for sexual dishonesty even when in a monogamous relationship, etc. I believe the Red Cross is more a danger than not. Eveyrone should have the practice of banking your own blood over time made avilable to them if possible, or another equally personal method needs to be devised to replace blind donors.

[wivabef]

The Red Cross needs to seriously reexamine all of its donation acception rules. I had some bad test which showed elavated liver enzymes and was told to never donate again. My husband did, too. He had donated over 2 gallons at that point. I had earned my gallon pin.

We have been able to donate in the hospital (for friends and family) with no problems. We never did understand what happened with that test.

[realtraveller]

This 2002 data from CDC/NIH supports the FDA's and Red Cross's position.

http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/aprs/aprs_press.asp?an=A00624

Men who have sex with men (MSM in the study) have [i]9 times[i] the rates of HIV infection than women or heterosexual men.

4.8% of gay men were infected compared to..

0.4 % of heterosexual men and..

0.5% of women

[rmthunter]

Fine, Kathy -- look at the absolute figures:

4.8% of gay men were infected, so 100% of gay men are not allowed to donate blood.

What kind of b***s*** is that?

[realtraveller]

rmthunter said

Fine, Kathy -- look at the absolute figures:

4.8% of gay men were infected, so 100% of gay men are not allowed to donate blood.

What kind of b***s*** is that?

What? I don't get it. By that 'logic' gay men should be excluded only if 100% of gay men were infected.

The gay men's community has seen the AIDs sorrow close-up. They have seen friends and lovers die slowly covered with sores. They have marched and campaigned for more funds to be devoted to AIDS research and treatment so that this epidemic can somehow be stopped. They, more than any other group, have seen what AIDS does.

With all that one would think that the gay men's community would be in the forefront of keeping the blood supply as safe as possible so that no more people will be infected and have to suffer like so many of their friends have suffered. No more children like Ryan White who got AIDS from the blood transfusion he needed due to hemophilia. One would think that gay men would be saying "Yes, keep the blood supply as HIV free as possible. We, who have seen so much AIDS are very concerned in preventing the spread of this epidemic".

As I said, I just don't get this effort. Is risking another Ryan White worth it? For what, for not feeling 'left out' of campus blood drives?

[erik_kosberg]

Didn't Ryan White contract HIV before the Red Cross started testing all donated blood for HIV-antibodies?

And, yes, his death was a tragedy for his family. But if he hadn't been a straight middle-class caucasian kid, would any of us have ever heard of him?

[drmomentum[$]]

All I see here is an appeal to an emotional reaction. You really haven't made much of a case that excluding a population that is 95.2% HIV-free makes the blood supply (one that we're often hearing is in short supply) that much safer. Maybe there is a case, but it's not here, and neither is it obvious.

If all there is is an appeal to emotion, maybe these folks are right to raise awareness.

[rmthunter]

realtraveller said

What? I don't get it. By that 'logic' gay men should be excluded only if 100% of gay men were infected.

Where's the cut-off point?

You don't have to tell me about the impact of HIV on the gay community. Been there.

And, somehow, "keeping the blood supply HIV free" doesn't equate to me with "don't let gay men donate blood." The Red Cross is going to have to come up with something a little more cogent than that.

Try looking at it from a slightly different view point: one more excuse to discriminate, buying into the "gay disease" mantra bruited about by such respected medical professionals as Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell.

Spare me.

[soxfan[$]]

realtraveller said