Hey Dave,

Wow, I think for the first time we disagree!  I won't be flaming on you, though. For me the ban reinforces the message that gay men breed disease, and I think most major scientific evidence shows that the tests that blood go through are thorough enough to protect from the possibility of disease transmission. 

I would love your opinion on what, for you, would be the conditions necessary to see before lifting the ban?

Thanks for commenting, and thanks for sparking dialogue!

LOL! Thanks for not flaming me Mike. There is always a first for everything, you and I disagreeing is just one of those firsts :)

Just looking at the statistics, more than half of all new HIV infections are still men who have sex with men. Clearly not all gay men are stupid (and have unprotected sex,) but most gay men on occasion do get drunk stupid on occasion (yes even the brightest of us....lol) not to say that heteros don't.

I know it reinforces the stereotype (and that is one of the reasons I have mixed feelings on it.) But I also see that much of our community hasn't learned from the past (especially those coming up behind us) and are not playing safe. in fact, a friend of mine asked me to a "sero-convert" party last week. Seriously!!!!!! It made me sick to my stomach. (For those of you who aren't familiar with what a sero-convert party it, it is those who go simply to have sex to CATCH HIV.)

We have to remember how defunct our education system has been over the past 8 years under Bush. They didn't provide sex education to our youth - they simply taught abstinence only.

Again, I'm not really sure what conditions would have to be in place. And as I said above, I think I would be much more comfortable if there were an effective vaccine.

I think in some ways it would be good to lift the ban, but I also think that too many within our community are irresponsible. If they were able to detect the virus within 24 hours, I would probably be okay with that as well. But technology isn't at that point yet.

I also think that if there is even the slightest chance of transmission, it could potentially be too risky. I don't know. All I can really say is, I don't know.

Mr. hershey...

With all due respect, I tend to question any set of statistics that would make any minority look worse than they really are...

The reason being that all too often, discrimination and politics goes hand in hand...

I work in a hospital and we give a LOT of blood to kids with life-threatening diseases.  Most of these kids are already immuno-supressed.  Let me impress the gravity of this situation to you, one child in the course of treatment may go through many units of blood.  Just one case of those containing HIV, HEP C or other blood-born diseases will kill this child fast.  This is not a political decision, it's a statistical decision.  In the same hospital we have IV drug users and you can bet that most long time users are HIV positive.  It's law of statistics, just because you are an IV user does not mean you are HIV positive, but if I am looking at  the numbers I'm not going to accept your blood because the chance of it having a blood-born illness is much higher than if you did not engage in behavior that put you in that category.

To that point the survey does not ask if you are gay, it asks if you have had sex with a man if you are a man and if you are a woman if you have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man.  The question asks if you engage in an action that has a higher risk factor, not your sexual identity.  You may be gay but celibate, then you are perfectly free to donate blood.  In the future when (and I believe this is the way the LGBT community is headed) statistics for heterosexual and homosexuals and bisexuals have the same rate of transition I don't think it will matter if you are in a monogamous relationship as to if you can give blood or not. 

I would agree with Mr. Hershey, we aren't taking about little white lies, these are lives.  I see them every day and I see the lives that blood saves.  If the blood supply had to be tested further because more possibly HIV positive cases entered the blood supply the cost would be paid in lives and that is not a price anyone should make another reason pay to advance their agenda, as important as it may be. 

To follow up here are some statistics from CDC.gov;

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

Shanah, actually there are questions that every blood donor must answer before each donation. If I remember correctly (20 years ago - before I became sexually active) some of the questions were as follows:

If you are a man: Have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?

If you are a woman: Have you had sex with a man who has had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?

For both: have you used intravenous drugs? Or something to the effect of "have you shared a needle with another person" (I can't remember the exact wording.)

For both: Have you ever exchanged sex for money? (As if no married person has ever done that, right? - LOL Can we say "Real Housewives?")

There were a lot more that I can't remember, but they all go to risk factors. These are just "little white lies" because in some cases, they CAN kill people if the disease is allowed to enter into the blood supply.

Mr. hershey...

All they have to do is test each would be donor before accepting a donation from them or for that matter, they could test each donation...Something they should be doing anyways no matter what the sexual orientation or sexual activity of the donor is.

All I'm saying is it is NO ONES business, it is their job to make sure that the blood they are taking is not contaminated and isn't going to harm someone. Gay people ARE NOT the only ones who could ever possibly contract, spread, or donate blood containing HIV. If you live, and you breathe, and you enjoy a promiscuous sex life, no matter your sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation, you could be infected with all sorts of things. The fact of the matter is that they need to be asking everyone this, in a generalized, non discriminatory manner, it is unfair to LGBT people to single them out just as it would be unfair to point me out because I am female, or an African American person just because their skin is dark. Discrimination is discrimination, and we need to lessen it as much as possible. I'm sure there are straight people that lie on those questionnaires about their sex life. And some of them most likely have the HIV virus or something else for that matter. It is not their job to sit there and ridicule you for the way you choose to live your life, it is their responsibility to make sure that the blood is safe and it gets to where it needs to be to save lives. A simple tests of a few drops of the blood can tell them whether its safe or not. When I went to donate blood, they took some blood to test for HIV and they tested my iron levels as well along with many other things that little machine does lol. It's a simple procedure that takes about ten seconds. I just think that we need to stop hating each other and find SOME WAY to survive together, in the same space, we were only given ONE planet to live on XD.

=^.^=

Has your man been in jail in any part of the last 10yrs and has he been incarcerated for more than 1yr at a time?  This is a question that needs to be on the form now.  More African-American women are dying because of what "they man" do while he in jail.  African-American women are the largest group being infected more than any other group but it is not a race that we need to have because everyone looses this one.  This has been the worst yet, Gay men numbers had been declining until people realized they can live with a pill. (What a bust that campaign has been)..So why be careful once the "danger" was taken away "You can still live with H.I.V. people became lax...I know I gave Blood when I was 16, 18 and 24.  When I needed Blood 3yrs ago I am glad it was there...Education is key no matter who is asking what question.  I lived in San Francisco from the start of the epidemic and it was use a condom, use a condom so if you didn't it was dumb on your part.  That campaign was geared toward Gay Men not heterosexuals, I knew I still did not want it so I carried my condoms.  As long as people lie like the other person said it does not matter what questions are asked or not asked...

Thomas, from my understanding they are testing every donation. But the problem is that someone could be infected today, donate tomorrow and the blood is already tainted, but it won't test positive. Therefore, the patient receiving the tainted blood will also be positive.

You also have to understand that the statistics that are reported are self-identified. Therefore, these statistics that show that men who have sex with men would actually go up if there were full investigations that took place surrounding those new infections.

I also understand the discrimination and politics side of it, I'm just saying that if there were a test developed that could detect the virus within 24 hours of infection, then I would go along with it. But as of yet, the tests don't detect until the two week mark at the earliest.

Taking into account the shelf life of blood products and the added cost of testing and it adds up to a higher cost for the same results at best and at worst more false negatives (no test is 100% effective) and the cost is higher rate of infection from blood donation.  Add either of these conditions to a group like the Red Cross and you severely limit the lives that are saved every year from donation. 

The problem with both yours and mr. piepgrass's argument is that the person infected may not neccessarily be homosexual...Statistics only go so far...The scenario suggested by mr piepgrass would actually have a greater likelyhood of happening with an infected heterosexual simply because of the amount of faith put in those statistics.

Oh without a doubt if there was a test that was quick, effective, and cost effective I don't think the ban would be an issue, after all that is a large population that could bolster reserves when blood is in low supply.  I think the best way that the LGBT community can change this ban is to be more conscientious about the risk factors for HIV and other STD's.  When being a sexually active gay man no longer means that you are in a higher risk category I think many of the issue we are talking about become non-issues.

In matters of social equality, I am absolutely for being active in your cause.  I think you are right though Dave in recognizing that putting other peoples lives at risk for the sake of making your point... If even one innocent life is lost I would hope that would make you think very hard if this is a battle best fought, or if energies would be best directed to more social and less medical avenues.

Jason, your link went to a page that was not found. But I did a little further search and your statement that Black women make up the majority of people who have HIV int the states for which we have recent statistics is inaccurate. They may have begun trending higher, but the fact is that men who have sex with men still make up approximately 53% (56% if you include male IV drug users who have sex with other men) of all new HIV/AIDS cases in the US. (Source, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm) Women in fact made up only 26% of new HIV/AIDS cases.

Apparently you didn't read an earlier post of mine that addresses many "high risk" groups that are also denied the opportunity to donate blood. These include but are not limited to prostitutes (anyone who has received money, drugs or any other form of payment for sex - like I said in my earlier post, this never happens in hetero marriage *snark off*,) men who have had sex with prostitutes, IV drug users, individuals who have gotten recent tattoos, women who are pregnant, people who have lived with or have had sexual contact with someone who has Hepatitus, people who have received a transplant or blood transfusion, people who have had an accidental needle-stick, had sexual contact with a hemophiliac or someone who has taken clotting factor concentrates, people who have been in prision/jail/juvenile facility for more than 72 hours, and those who have had or have been treated for syphilis or gonorrhea, been outside the US (or Canada) within the past 3 years. These are ALL disqualifying factors.

Now I agree that some of these disqualification factors are antiquated, some of them still make sense. Looking at the link that I posted above, there are still hemophiliacs (among transfusion recipients) who have obtained HIV through the blood supply. And again, I would have no problem if there were a test that would detect it within 24 hours of infection, but the technology simply isn't there yet. In fact, I wish someone who come up with such a test, but until they do, I still think that our best option is to keep the blood supply as safe as possible.

Trust me, this is VERY difficult for me to say as a gay man.

I figured out where the numbers you got were coming from....... when you click on the link you posted the extra ")" at the end prevented it from locating the page.

I also think that you somewhat misunderstood the data a little bit. The break down that 64% of black women are those who have HIV, the data indicate that of women (only women) 64% are black. Not that black women make up 64% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US. Yes blacks make up 49% of those who are living with HIV/AIDS in the US; however, the two main risk factors of that group are men who have sex with men, and IV drug users (both disqualifying categories for blood donors.) If we are going to lift the ban on gay men, should we also lift the ban on IV drug users as well? After all, IV drug users make up an even smaller number than gay men in this country.

I'm not saying that to be snide, I would just like to determine a baseline as to what risk factors are and are not acceptable.

Indeed mr. ramsey.

Jason, I understand what you are saying. But you are comparing someone for being in a high-risk category they don't even know they belong in to those who are admittedly at higher risk?

I am looking at the facts, and those facts show that MSM make up 53-56% of the population that carry HIV. It is also estimated that 25% of people with HIV don't even know that they are positive. Much of that is because people are afraid to get tested. I'm sorry, but I don't think that people should be jeopardizing the blood supply by getting their HIV tests done where the potential of spreading the disease on to other non-suspecting victims.

Would you really feel comfortable knowing that the potential for you to contract somethign due to something that is completely out of your control? I just don't believe that everything should be done to prevent furthering the risk to others. After all, our medical system is set up to uphold the oath of first and foremost, "to do no harm."

I know that we are probably going to end up agreeing to disagree, but I do appreciate the dialogue.

UGH! I should have proof-read

*I just believe everything should be done to prevent.....

I gave blood years upon years ago (of course it was before I became sexually active,) and yes i feel it is morally wrong for heterosexuals to give blood if they've had unprotected sex with more than one partner on a regular basis, and should probably be one of the questions asked. But that is my moral basis.

As far as lying, I would never condone because even the most innocent of intentions can have devastating consequences. Again, that is me and the type of person that I am.

Now you know why I am conflicted on the issue. I agree with what you are saying to an extent. I think it would depend on the length of time between the testing period. For example, if you got tested six months prior and then a week prior (and not having sex within the time frame from the first test) then I wouldn't have much of an argument against it. But most people (if at all) get tested once a year (six months at most.)

What is immoral is that the FDA regs force you into the position where you have to question your own morality on a life and death question. See my comment further along...

There are many promisquous heterosexuals that give blood and they need to be banned as well.

I agree with you 100% on that Chris, as well as with the majority of your post.

Again, my only problem is that the incubation window is so long on HIV that the technology that exists today just can't catch all contaminated blood going into the blood supply.

So Chris, how do you get around the ban? Do they not ask you? Do you lie to them? I'm confused.

No I do not lie. I am honest that I am in a relationship and its with a man, the nurses who take my blood know me quite well now since I go to the same clinic every five weeks. I gave blood before Ruben came here and before I lost my virginity to him. I had him tested for STDs as soon as he got here because he was in a previous relationship long before we decided to take our intimate friendship to what it is today. I also got tested, even though it wasn't any use, to not leave him feeling alienated. He was very mature about the situation and had no STDs of any kind.

When Ruben had to return to Finland I waited four months before I started donating blood. Before that I got retested for all STDs and had none. I started giving blood agian when the nurses called my house wondering why I havent donated in so long and that my blood is extremely important, especially children of the same blood type with cancer. After I told them I couldn't give blood because of the ban they told me to come in and talk with their screeners. After I gave my paper work to the screener she decided to disreguard the ban. Like many gay couples and people I am very responsible with my body and my health. I dont know for a fact but i believe there are a few places that disreguard this ban because of it's bias.

This is what I propose as a new ban: All persons who have sex with strangers must wait five months then produce a mandatory test that proves they carry no pathogens that could cause disease. That is my solution. If someone wants to give blood to save lives then they will follow the rules just like many of us already do. No exceptions.

Don't make that informatin too public Chris at least for now. Thanks for sharign the circumstances for which they do make exceptions (AND for being as responsible as you are.)

There is no rapid screening for HIV so no they don't screen for HIV before taking your blood and the vials that they do take are screened with tests that can detect HIV...  However there is no 100% accurate screening for HIV and the best we can do is repeated screens over time. Let me make sure this is perfectly clear NO TEST IS 100% ACCURATE.  Blood and blood products have a shelf life so it's impossible to be 100% certain that the blood being donated is not contaminated. 

It's a a statistics decision really.  If you have a group that has a .5  chance of having HIV and another group that has a .009 average chance it makes more sense to have the .009% when you have a test that has a .1% false negative result.  I'm pulling the raw numbers out of my ear but you get the concept. We are playing a statistical balancing act between saving lives and protecting the lives of those in need.

I couldn't agree more.  I am also a gay man, I practice serial monogamy and safe sex, I can count the number of partners I've had in 33 years on one hand, I haven't had sex with anyone for over a year, I've tested negative for HIV and been generally healthy in that period, and still my O negative blood must stay out of the donor pool.  I could marry someone else, man or woman, and we could be monogamous for the rest of our lives, and my blood would still be excluded.  I find it very difficult to believe that, by focusing on specific recent and/or frequent high-risk sexual acts, the relevant health organizations cannot construct a new set of screening questions that is at least as effective at preventing transmission while opening the door to an increased number of donations.

Well said Ted however it is not that simple. Until we are no longer oppressed, self destructive behavior will continue to flourish in the underground with us LGBT. We are still the highest risk factor for transmitting HIV. The CDC is quite clear that these high rates will only rise unless we are finally considered equal and are no longer discriminated against. It has been shown across the border that in areas of the US that support LGBT fully, like MA, the HIV rates have declined.

Hopefully after Obama pulls his head out of his segregationist ass, some progress will be made... but I still have little to no hope for this country. To work around this ban I say we force all people who have sex with strangers to have to wait a 5 month period and then take a mandatory STD screen. If they pass the screen then they should be allowed to donate. If they are in a relationship their partner must also get screened.

Basically what you are doing with your spouse is the responsible thing to do that should be allowed to pass for donating blood. However in time this ban will be lifted after HIV rates decline within out populace.

"Until we are no longer oppressed, self destructive behavior will continue to flourish in the underground with us LGBT..." No doubt. Self destructive behavior is a big issue among LGBT people. But the issue really IS a simple one.

It is quite simply nothing more than an unfair stereotype to brand all LGBT people as self destructive. I do not assume that YOU are self-destructive. Should I? Does anyone have that right?

That is the attitude that we fought against in the early days of ACT UP. It is based in the same prejudiced rationalization that is used to support the ban on queers who want to serve their country in the military and every other discriminatory policy and law that preserves our collective criminal-class status. It presumes we are all guilty of being self-destructive. We are not.

It is simply not true that we all respond to oppression by engaging in self destructive behaviors. And those who are among the "self destructive LGBT underground" are not likely to go out of their way to donate blood, join the military or marry their partners, are they? Why would they? There is nothing self destructive about that (except maybe for wanting to join the military and going off hoping to be killed somewhere). 

Health Public policy based on behaviors should not exempt any group of people (i.e. heterosexuals) who are capable of engaging in the same kind of risky behavior that a target group (i.e. LGBT) is believed to engage in as a group. Simply put, this is the very meaning of discrimination based on prejudice. Simple.