FDA Pushes Plan to Let Gay Men Donate Blood as Long as Nobody Loves Them


A month ago a panel in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) end its ban that kept men who had ever had sex with other men from ever donating blood as a way to avoid accidental exposure of HIV to the blood supply. Instead, they suggested that the FDA treat gay and bisexual men the same way they treat heterosexual men who have consorted with prostitutes: No blood donations for a year if they've had sex. Now the FDA is pushing forward with this recommendation, to possibly be implemented early next year.
The current permanent ban is based on old science about how reliable HIV tests were and how long it takes for tests to detect HIV in the bloodstream. There was a time when it could take months, as the virus incubated, for an infected person to test positive. Current HIV tests can detect the virus now with just an 11-day window for incubation.
So a permanent ban preventing gay and bisexual men from donating blood is overkill. But even the one-year ban seems extreme, given the science. AIDS awareness group Gay Men's Health Crisis calls the new policy useless and essentially a "lifetime ban" for most gay men. But this one-year ban matches the rules for other countries like the United Kingdom and Canada. According to one study, letting gay men who aren't getting laid donate blood would add 317,000 pints to the blood supply in the United States annually.
So I'm working on my script treatment for a gay "indie" romantic comedy about two lonely men who meet while donating blood and have to get over whatever personality quirks have been keeping them from getting some action. Steal my idea and you'll be the one needing blood donations.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They can't get rid of the rule. Just imagine all of the homophobic rubes who would start refusing blood transfusions.
And the down side to that would be what, exactly?
uh... uh...
Uhm, you'd catch The Gay. Duh.
What's the problem? If bigots don't want lifesaving treatment I'm sure as hell not going to try and jam it down their throats.
I think you're confusing blood transfusions with vampirism.
Understandable, as vampires are pretty gay.
And sparkly
Ob:
Vampire Reunion
"What's the problem? If bigots don't want lifesaving treatment "
Exactly. And:
What's the point of asking gay men when they last had the sex ? Everyone knows the gayers lie and teh gayers, who only want to donate blood in an effort to infect the non cake baking hertocisgenders, will all just lie and say they are virgin gayers.
Don't ask and don't tell.
Merry Christmas to all, even teh Tony.
Arthur Ashe could not be reached for comment.
They used to segregate (!) blood by the "race" of the donor black/white. They got over that and we survived.
And, there is nothing to stop those homophobic rubes from starting their own blood banks, etc.
For planned surgery they often let the patient pre-donate, and get targeted donations from his relatives.
They used to segregate (!) blood by the "race" of the donor black/white. They got over that and we survived.
They did? Shit shit shit shit shit shit..... MY PURITY HAS BEEN TAINTED!!!!
THREADKILLER READ THAT AS "MY PUBERTY HAS BEEN TAINTED."
THREADKILLER'S MISTAKE MADE THREADKILLER LAUGH ON THE INSIDE. THREADKILLER NEVER LAUGHS AUDIBLY.
THREADKITTEN JUST PURRS.
There was a really funny episode of MASH about it where they turned a bigoted soldier black after he said to make sure he got "white" blood.
There was a funny episode of MASH?
you never had any purity to begin with.
Can I catch Socialism from the blood of socialist donors?
You know who else refused blood transfusions?
Prince?
Prince is a weird dude.
In an amusing brush with almost-celebrity, my wife's new best friend is a former Prince protege who presumably used to bang him in the 80s.
Did he make pancakes for her?
I'll have to ask. Seems likely.
Your wife's best friend is Vanity?
We're already in production, baby.
THREADKILLER KILLS EARLY.
THREADKILLER APPRECIATES IRONY OF GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSING EQUALITY OF GAY MEN WHILE MOST GAY MEN LOOK TO GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE PROBLEM OF PRIVATE CITIZENS NOT TREATING THEM EQUALLY.
HOWEVER, THREADKILLER TREATS ALL PEOPLE AS THREADKILLER KILLS ALL THREADS- EQUALLY.
Gentlemen, I think we've found our new village idiot.
THREADKILLER TAKES OFFENSE AT TONIO CALLING MEAN NAMES. THREAD IS KILLED.
I know CPR.
*revives thread*
TAKE THAT!
THREADKILLER KNOWS THREADS HAVE NO HEART, RENDERING CPR USELESS.
THREADKITTEN FLAPS TAIL USELESSLY.
Thread is revived like a laser pointer.
Someone's started early with the holiday libations, I see.
Include a slightly kinky scene where one gets tied up with the red elastic the Red Cross uses to hold your bandage on.
If they are going to have a policy like this, they should at least be consistent and include women who have had anal sex with men who have had anal sex with men, men who have had sex with such women, etc. Presumably those people have the same extra risk of HIV infection as men who have anal sex with men.
Everybody has to keep a journal of activities. Lots of check boxes and multiple choice questions.
IIRC as part of the screening the Red Cross does ask if any of your partners have had sex with men, used IV drugs, etc.
"How the fuck would I know? I don't keep 'em caged in the basement any more. Stupid restraining order."
Stupid anti-pimping laws!
The sane thing to do is to allow blood banks to use whatever criteria they want to ensure they have untainted/uninfected blood that their customers want - eg the hospitals, clinics etc.
And then if some blood banks apply their judgement and conclude the blood of gay men is too dangerous to risk, and others say, "it's perfectly safe and to ban those donors unnecessarily limits their supply", then they deal with the consequences.
Unfortunately FDA rules tend to be interpreted in a totalitarian manner; that which is not forbidden becomes mandatory. And given the fear of contamination that drives a great deal of homophobia, I think that we will see some pretty appalling reactions to the change in the rule.
What do they say to a patient that gets infected with HIV? Oopsie?
the Culture War will have a few casualties. Who cares if a few have to die of AIDS for no good reason? At least we didn't offend the gays.
For fuck's sake, this is about the FDA, and it is about repealing a prohibition not passing a mandate.
It's like there's this special button which when pushed turns conservatives into retards who ape the left.
Last I checked blood banks screen for HIV as well as hepatitis C. And the solution is the same as the one that prevents you from eating beef cooked in toilet bowl cleaner: the tort system
I believe there is some question as to the accuracy of the tests, particularly in the first months after exposure.
Then there is some chance of getting HIV, or hep C, which is really just about as bad at this point if not worse, from any blood.
Let's ask Arthur Ashe.
What do they say to a patient that gets infected with HIV?
Same thing they say to patients that get HIV now from blood transfusions. I don't know exactly how short the blood supply is, but it is probably preferable to get the blood you need to live and take the miniscule risk that you might get HIV. Does that still happen at all anymore? Anyone know of any cases of HIV from blood transfusion since they started screening for it?
In this country, the last time was 2008. Before that case, there weren't any six years prior.
Mickey Rat|12.23.14 @ 4:41PM|#
"What do they say to a patient that gets infected with HIV? Oopsie?"
Pretty sure blood can be tested by now.
It'll be interesting if they relax this rule and keep the one that won't let me give blood because I once lived in the UK for six months. That disqualifies me from giving blood. Because I might have Mad Cow disease. I'm not making this up..
My father always gave blood and was very proud of it, but because he was once on a list of people whose blood might have contained Hep. C he was banned for the rest of his life, even though further tests showed that he definitely didn't have it.
I'm in the same boat, lived in the UK for 3 years.
If the year long celibacy rule amounts to a lifetime ban on blood donation for homosexual men...so what?
It seems as if not having sexual practices associated woth gays not being judged as riskier is more important than keeping the blood supply as free of HIV as possible. There is no harm done to gay men except possibly to thier pride,
B- trolling. The poor grammar and completely missing the fucking point were solid, but the homophobia could have been a little less overt.
Irrational, emotional response to an honestly stated question. Typical Social Justice Warrior tactic trying to shut down discussion that is critical of the politically correct position.
The only thing that matters is keeping the blood supply as free of disease as possible. If the rules that make that happen make anyone feel excluded or judged, no one should care.
Donated blood is screened for infectious disease (including HIV and other STDs) as a matter of course. As Shackford mentioned above the detection window for HIV is 11 days.
At most that would justify denying bros who had sexual contact with bros in the past 30 days. But really there's no reason to do it all, except for fear that the donor blood will change the reasons you enjoy pro football.
Then that means that the year long restriction after having sex with prostitutes should be out the door as well but it does not appear that has a special interest group opposing it.
The only thing that matters is keeping the blood supply as free of disease as possible.
That is just plain wrong. The only way to do that is not to do any blood transfusions at all. You have to balance keeping the blood supply disease free with having an adequate blood supply. I don't know if allowing gay donors is necessary for that, but it may well be so.
The question is where do you draw the line and with what factor of actuarial safety. I'm sorry but I do not trust Gay Men's Health Crisis to have a dispassionate opinion motivated only by the facts of risk analysis. Particularly if other similar exclusionary rules such as having sex with prostitutes are to remain in place.
There is, however, harm done to people who can't get blood products that they need because of short supply.
Do homosexual men represent a supply that is worth the costs in time, effort and unusable supply?
Blood banks screen everybody, for HIV for sure. As I recall, for hepatitis as well.
I don't know. It might be. But you have to ask those questions and balance the risks and benefits.
Question about U.S. blood banks: can you sell your blood and/or plasma? Is it a state-by-state scenario where some have banned it and some have not?
Ontario banned it awhile back, we got sicking editorials such as this:
"People who voluntarily give the gift of blood ? motivated by altruism instead of financial reward ? present a safer source than those who are down-and-out and reduced to selling their bodily fluids."
Selling my blood, for the record, was how I got beer money in university.
While the Red Cross won't pay you (though they'll happily sell your donated blood), there are plenty of smaller blood banks that will paid for donations.
Heroic Mulatto|12.23.14 @ 5:39PM|#
"While the Red Cross won't pay you (though they'll happily sell your donated blood),"
You can't sell an organ, either, which mean the donor is the only one not making money on a transplant.
The most uncomfortable question on blood donation checklist is "have you been in jail for more than 3 days in row?"
I mean, really? You can fend off for yourself for 3 days, but then it's rape time? Very dispiriting.
It's the anal virginity equivalent of the five second rule.
It has to do with what cell you're placed in.
"a gay "indie" romantic comedy "
Is that neither "Gandhi" nor "Pocahontas"?
Does it involve my complicated emotions when I look into this man's eyes?
I think I really like the way that is going to work. Wow.
http://www.AnonWayz.tk
I think I really like the way that is going to work. Wow.
http://www.AnonWayz.tk
Perhaps it would be a good idea to decide this question on the public-health merits, not on silly slogans like "nobody loves them."
IIRC, blood banks would ask if you'd been in Haiti or certain African countries. I suppose they may still ask this. Is that racist?
I'm guessing that viruses and bacteria haven't had sensitivity training, and their disease vectors can go in all sorts of un-PC ways.
So long as the blood has been screened for disease, not for PC compliance, I wouldn't mind if I got a lifesaving transfusion from the gayest gay in Gaytown.
Gay guy goes into the hospital. Doctor says he needs some blood, but has to choose: His new blood can come from either 100% gay guys or 100% non-gay guys.
Are we actually, with a straight face, going to wonder what his choice might be?
Non-gay guy here. I'd still choose the gay blood with the hope that it would improve my fashion sense.
You better hope you don't get my blood and end up with a craving for khakis and cheap polo shirts from Old Navy.
If I get a gay transfusion will my pee pee fall off?
In fairness, I got hepatitis C as a baby from a blood transfusion, so I am all for ensuring the cleanliness of blood. It does seem like 11 days may make more sense.
What was the rationale for the ban in the first place?