FDA's gay blood ban?

The FDA bans any male who has committed a homosexual act since 1977 from donating blood. The reasoning for this is somewhat convoluted, and has changed several times. Currently, officially, gays cannot give blood because there is a lapse between HIV infection and accurate detection of HIV antibodies, 2 months max.

You can give blood if you have had Syphilis or Gonarrhea. . . even if you have genital warts. (it's true, check the Red Cross page) But, you cannot give blood if you have had gay sex, even once, in the last 31 years. The Red Cross has sought to abolish this since 2005 but the FDA refuses.

Should a gay still try to give blood? Should he lie? Tell the truth and get rejected? Would you turn down someone's blood because of his orientation?

yeah. . . I'm not sexually active, have not been for a long time. There is NO WAY I have HIV. And couldn't any straight person's blood show a false negative in that two months?

Considering the fact that gay people are not the fastest growing group of HIV positive persons Id say that edict is outdated and uninformed.

it is not only gays it is also persons who were in Europe in the mid to late 80's. my husband who has a rare type blood can not donate because he was stationed in Germany during the late 80's. because he might be carrying a dormant form of "mad cow" disease. they put those precautions in force to protect the person who is getting the blood. So if the rule is these persons can't give blood then, they can't give blood. It is nothing against these persons just they don't have the ability to ensure the safety of the blood. also persons who used IV drugs are also ban. I'm sure there are alot of people who would like to donate but they can't.

Canadian court acquits in HIV blood scandal
published Monday, October 1, 2007
A judge in Toronto acquitted three doctors, a New Jersey company and a former Red Cross official of criminal charges Monday in a tainted-blood scandal that left thousands of Canadians with HIV or hepatitis.
Toronto Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto said in her verdict that the defendants did not show conduct that displayed wanton and reckless disregard and that there was no marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

"The conduct examined in detail over one and a half years confirms reasonable and responsible and professional actions and responses during this difficult time. The allegations of criminal conduct on the part of these men and this corporation were not only unsupported by the evidence, they were disproved."

The case is the first criminal trial related to the more than 1,000 Canadians who became infected with HIV and up to 20,000 others who contracted hepatitis C after receiving blood transfusions and tainted blood products from Bridgewater, New Jersey-based Armour Pharmaceutical Co. in the 1980s and early 1990s.

At least 3,000 people have died and others remain terminally ill.

The charges filed in November 2002 claimed that the accused failed to properly screen blood donors or their blood, then failed to warn the public and the Canadian government about the risks associated with their blood product, Factorate.

next page >page 1 2 3
Discuss this article
Post a comment | View all comments
correc... (10/1/2007 11:33 PM PDT)
This story has limited applicability to those of us in the United States,

Gonorrhea isn't blood-borne, and it's not an incurable disease.

I think this makes perfect sense. While technically anyone CAN get HIV, three groups of people are more likely to get HIV than other groups: intravenous drug users; whores, prostitutes, and the sexually promiscuous; homosexuals. Homosexuals still tend to be more likely than others to get HIV because unlike heterosexuals who use condoms as the main form of contraception (besides the pill), while fear of diseases such as HIV is one of the only reasons for homosexuals to wear condoms.

Also, since there is a 2 month lag between getting HIV and having enough pathogens to be accurately detected, and there's no cure for AIDS, this is something people can't take a chance on.

If you do lie and give blood without giving them accurate information, you know what that makes you? Evil. You may not even know if you have HIV, and may have gotten it in a variety of ways, and by not following their rules you're possibly endangering the life of an innocent blood donor.

The FDA rules are in place for the protection of the blood receiver. If you don't follow them, you're possibly doing more harm than good.