Blood Drive

I asked a friend of mine who is a doctor in Australia specializing in STD's about the appropriateness of the blood banks refusing to take blood from gays. He doesn't know the American politics very well. He says

"You raise an interesting and important question.

As far as I'm aware few countries if any would accept blood from someone
in a high risk group.

I don't understand why anyone wastes time arguing that it is
discriminating. It is just plain sensible.

The facts are that HIV transmission among men who have sex with men
(MSM) runs at about 1-2% per year in most major cities. Most tests pick
up infection within 4 weeks of exposure, and one could probably transmit
between 2 to 4 weeks after exposure. So there is a two week window for
year.....so theoretically there may be a one in 2,000 chance of passing
HIV during a window period. All these numbers are rubbery.....and they
would argue that if you allow MSM to donate, if they have not had
unprotected sex it should be safe....in my business you learn not to
trust anyone.

When you can't trust what people say- how can you reassure the
community...you can't.

Have there been cases of HIV transmitted through blood banks with the
current tests...yes. And they occurred during the window period that
was missed by the tests."

As a person who has had to have a blood transfusion in the past, I am glad that the Blood Banks stringently check out blood donors. To say that this represents "discrimination" shows a total lack of medical savvy and just plain common sense. Most hospitals today have separate isolation rooms for people with contagious diseases (such as antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis) from which the public is barred. To argue that this represents discrimination against the T.B. patient is sheer craziness. Our civilization has advanced to the point where we know how to protect healthy people from disease, which includes isolation of the diseased person.
I would think that gay people would be glad to cooperate in this protection of civilization. To put one's feelings of being discriminated against above the welfare of society in general is just plain selfish.

It is my impression that what bothers the people who protest this policy are the odd inconsistencies that are difficult to explain without the assumption that there is some homophobia involved. Consider this information taken directly from the New York Blood Center's website: If "you or your sexual partner had sex with a prostitute within the past 12 months, even once", then you must wait "12 months after last incident" in order to give blood. However, if you "are a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once" you are permanently barred from giving blood. In other words, if you have sex with a bunch of prostitutes, you have to wait a year, but if you have responsible, safe sex with another man, you can never give blood. That doesn't make sense, medical or otherwise. This, I think, is why there is a widespread impression that the policy is based on an irrational fear of gay people.

I don't think it is an irrational fear of gay people as much as a rational fear of AIDS. Love the person, hate the disease.

I for one wish the blood banks would be even more stringent. They must do this because spreading AIDS through blood transfusion is a very real possibility and it has happened.

What I find even weirder is that the Blood Bankwill not let you donate blood if you have been in England in the past year. They say it's because of Mad Cow disease. Who knew?

Also, one of the guys who wanted to donate blood for National Gift of Life Day today was turned down because he had a cold sore. What, do we charge them with discrimination against people who have cold sores?