June 21, 2010
-
Should We Reject Black Blood Donations?
Gay people are not allowed to give blood. Their blood is rejected by the FDA.
According to the FDA “Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence … 60 times higher than the general population.” In other words, the blood of gay men is more likely to have HIV so it is rejected.
Black people are 7 times more likely to have HIV than white people. Here is the link: Link
Should we reject blood from black people?
Comments (151)
Yes.
Can’t they test it?
No, but I also don’t believe that homosexuals should be rejected either. The gift of life should be something everyone is allowed to give and all donated blood goes through a long screening process. Sexual orientation AND skin color shouldn’t have anything to do with it.
@OhItWontBeForever - Yes they can test of it. And they probably do it routinely since we know HIV is not a gay-only disease. The whole situation is ridiculous and we ought to fire whoever is responsible.
No, why? The test who you have in the usa, are good enough i think. Where we are, that we have to decide that…?
if the person is infected, yes?
I thought they test it anyways?
By that standard, yes we should. Of course, there really isn’t any reason to reject gays in the first place, as all the blood is tested. So there is no reason to reject blacks either.
Only if they are Christian.
Reject everyone. Who needs a pesky little thing like blood?
here in Switzerland, all people under a weight of 100 pounds are reject… But skin color never should be a reject reason!
There is no reason to reject any one. Just do the test and be done with it. Sheesh.
If the blood of a homosexual is clean, I say let them donate. Same goes for black people.
it depends on the individual, not on the group as a whole.
@Maha75 - It’s the same way in the States. You have to be at least 110lbs and you have to be at least 17 years old.
we shouldn’t reject any blood anymore for reasons like this (one group statistically being more likely to have AIDs). I wish I could find the article I read the other day about this, it was really great.
it’s important to note that the current rules against gay blood were conceived back in the 80′s, when AIDs was a relatively new problem and not as much was understood. Testing methods were also a lot different; today, blood undergoes rigorous testing no matter WHO donates it, so blood with HIV would never get through the system- therefore, there is little reason to screen against it, when allowing all blood would result in a much higher amount of (clean blood) donations.
I never thought of it like this. I do know some people donate blood just so they can have their blood tested for free to find out whether they have HIV or not….and those people are gay, straight, black, white, etc…
I think (think, not sure) in Canada you must go through blood tests before you are allowed to give blood – thus it does not matter your sexual orientation. You cannot give blood if you’ve had a tattoo in the last year either. They wouldn’t let my mom give blood because according to them, she’s anemic, though she never knew that.
I don’t understand why they can’t test someone for it and if then if they are clear allow the person to donate. What’s the big deal? Not all gay men have AIDS. True it is a higher percentage but its NOT all.
No, we should infect as many people with HIV as possible to find its cure. I’m sure there’s some black joe out there who is the messiah, and I’d love to screen all their blood to see. White people the bringers of filth diseases. The other just had location, location, location going on for so long.
They’re supposed to test every donation for a number of things. This is why the blood supply is low. If they stopped being ignorant maybe we would have a good supply. Just because you’re gay doesnt mean you’ll automatically get HIV.
There is a big difference between 7 and 60 times. And really it has more to do with statistics than racism or hating a group because it would be my guess they do not have enough people do test and retest blood. But I could be wrong? I wouldnt want anyone with anything over 25 times (even if they were white) but hey, what do I know.
I agree with the Penguin. ^ ^
a homosexual who is safe about whatever they choose to do, should have just as much opportunity to save a life as me.
@haloed - That happened to me the 2nd time I tried to give blood. I’m anemic but I can donate if my iron levels are up. Mine isnt so severe, thank God, so I can control it through food or OTC (over the counter) supplements.
@LauraG0929 - Thanks honey…
I dont know that… Regards from Switzerland Maha
So your comparing 7x to 60x a silly comparison. Obliviously 60x is so much higher that its insane to take it. While 7x is worth the effort
I’m skeptical that these figures are accurate, and the link isn’t working for me. I have been refused the opportunity to give blood so many times (because I check “yes” to the question, “At any time during the 1980′s, did you spend time on an American military installation in Germany?”) that I no longer even try. However, if i checked “yes” to “Have you at any time accepted money for sex?”, “Have you ever had unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner?” or “Have you ever shared needles for intravenous drug use?”, they would allow me to donate blood and check the box on the blood bag that says it should be tested for HIV. The reason is that blood can be easily tested for HIV, but not for mad-cow disease. (At least that’s how the Red Cross volunteers have explained it to me when I’ve asked.)
@Shinbi_Belldandy - I fear my blood is also on the anemic side. We both have similar fatigue symptoms and low iron counts.
Anyone can get AIDS – its not so isolated anymore, that’s why they test the blood. So why reject gays and blacks? Oh wait…this is America.
So when the hell did infectious blood born diseases become a game of political football?
They test it all anyway, don’t they? Not just for HIV but for other things. There are a lot of reasons why various people wouldn’t be able to give blood that have nothing to do with race. I can’t because I’m anemic and have an autoimmune disease.
@musicmom60 - @RushmoreJ - Yes they can test of it. And they probably
do it routinely since we know HIV is not a gay-only disease. The whole
situation is ridiculous and we ought to fire whoever is responsible.
Then why don’t they accept gay blood?
I thought anyone who had unprotected sex with numerous partners were more likely to contract HIV regardless of their orientation.
@haloed - It’s the same way in the States as well. When I was 17 I donated for the first time and almost wasn’t passed to do it because I was slightly anemic. I haven’t donated since, because I’ve gotten at least one tattoo a year since.
Some people won’t say they are gay.
I’ll leave that one to the experts. All I know is that there seems to be a preponderance of blood “donation” (they pay you to give blood) centers in lower income neighborhoods where I live. The people I see hanging out by the entrances are virtually always African American. Regardless of one’s stance on the subject, I suspect that the African American community provides a disproportionately high source for blood.
quite frankly, I don’t give blood. but if I needed blood I wouldn’t really care who it came from as long as they don’t have AIDS…
Correct me if I’m wrong… when you get ready to test blood who knows what the race of the person who gave it? I mean does black blood look diferent from white blood, puerto rican, afrikan blood or gay blood? I mean if I cut a gay man does his blood have rainbow speckles or glow in the dark? The person receiving the blood doesn’t give not one damn about what the race of the donor is, they are more concerned about the fact that its blood from a healthy person, that it’s a match and that it won’t kill them.
So my next question, is if were cool to reject black blood because we are so much more succeptable to HIV/AIDS? Then its cool to reject black organs too? Unbelivable.
@TooComplicated2Explain - Anal sex is more likely to pass on STD’s than vaginal sex, which seems to explain why gay men are more likely to get said STD’s than other.
That being said, it’s ridiculous to not accept blood from anyone if it is just going to be tested, though I guess me saying that is just beating a dead horse. I should go write a congressman.
I think it is silly not to accept gay blood since they check it for HIV anyway.
Why don’t they just test the damn blood?
sigh
They should turn down no one’s blood out of hand. They should just test it.
I think rejecting blood simply because a man had sex with another man is stupid. Think how many more people could and would donate if that stipulation was gone. They test your blood EVERY time you donate, and if you test HIV+ or any other STD, they notify you and put you on a list so you can no longer donate.
I just get pissed when I think about not being able to give blood because I’m Gay. No blood should be refused on the basis of orientation or race!!!
No, we shouldn’t. I don’t think we should reject blood from gay people, either. I always thought that was stupid. And, my opinion on the matter hasn’t changed. :p
pretty sure they screen blood donors for stuff like HIV
This is why companies are still working at perfecting synthetic blood.
Being a paramedic I have to be very aware of pathogens. It’s unbelievable how many people do have HIV and/or hepatitis (btw – it’s Hep C that scares me.) I firmly believe in prescreening donors before the needle is stuck in their arm. That prescreen questionaire isn’t just protecting the blood supply, it’s protecting the employees and the donors as well. Not necessarily from HIV since that’s a tough one to contract, but definitely from Hep C.
just test it.
I say no because I have heard that they screen the blood before giving it to you and there is like a pretty small chance of it only being contaminated with an STD. Also twice now within past 2 yrs Jared aka Brain has had 2 blood transfusions this last time during Chrismas they had to give him EIGHT units of blood which is almost being dead so if it wasn’t for people’s blood I would not have Jared today.~ Pinky
Lame. NO. They test blood anyway.
How current are these statistcs? Is the homosexual statistic outdated? Also, how do they find men who lie about having sex with other men? Being black (however one wants to define it) is harder to hide. So, silent segragation versus blatent…?
We’re also talking about 60x versus 7x. (These numbers may be misleading–it could be 0.060 vs. 0.007 probabability of having HIV). Testing is an option, but I don’t know the false-negative rates of HIV tests for human blood.
I’d need more information, but I would think after additional time (and a better sex education system in the US), these rates would decrease.
This is a completely stupid question.
They test all the blood anyways. My blood was tested and it came up with FALSE positive for hep C. I can’t give blood ever again. Awesome right?
I first heard about this for the first time when I tried to recruit my very good (and very gay) friend Derek to come donate blood with me. I was, and still am, furious. All donated blood is tested before it is given to a patient in need, so no group should be prevented from donating due to something that can’t be helped, be it sexual orientation or skin color.
As it stands, the blood shortages in America are IMMENSE. All it would take is for each eligible citizen in the US to donate once more each year and there would be no blood shortages. So be they gay, black, latino, white, purple, or orange, if they’re clean let them donate, goddamnit.
this is absolutly ridiculous !!!!! they test every 1′s blood! they have to bc its the law!!!
Well it depends. I want to know how many times higher black men have HIV compared to the GENERAL population. Comparing against whites isn’t the same thing.
Anyways. The blood is tested anyways. To reject what could be perfectly good blood is not only unfair to the homosexuals willing to give, but to the person who needs the blood as well.
Blood is supposed to be tested every time anyways. I think we should continue that practice while accepting blood from EVERYONE. And once one test comes up HIV positive simply let the person know and make them aware that they are no longer eligible to give.
(Also an another note: I’d like to know when those statistics were taken. Times have changed and people are more careful with using condoms. It’s strange that even being in constant contact with an gay fraternity I know more straight people with HIV or AIDS than gay men with it.)
There is a big difference between 7X and 60X. Apparently the Red Cross just doesn’t want to get its ass in a sling because of homos’ voracious anal proclivities.
They test the blood for diseases like AIDS, so I don’t see the need for restrictions like this.
Always reject black blood. It is supposed to be red! I’d say the black stuff has probably spoiled.
If I needed blood, I don’t think I would be worried about the color or sexual orientation of the donor.
I remember reading an article a few weeks ago about gay rights groups fighting the ban against homosexuals giving blood, but a haemophiliac group was fighting their request because in the past so many haemophiliacs were accidentally given HIV-tainted blood prior to the more recent stringent HIV screening. The screening is still not 100% reliable so I respect their concerns, but at the same time there are so many blood donation shortages I’m not sure it’s prudent to alienate a whole group of people. If say, a homosexual man has been in a monogamous relationship for over a year or two, I think he should be eligible to donate blood.
Maybe they could use it for poor people.
Haha.
Does blood have an expiration date once it’s withdrawn from the donor?
ummm white people also get hiv to sooo how about nobdy donates blood and we all just die
maybe we should just reject all blood donates since we’re already being gigantic assholes about it.
blood is blood.
I’ve always wanted to know where that 60 times is coming from for gay people. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are using numbers from way back when AIDS was discovered. The gay community is slightly better about using condoms now since many of them don’t want AIDS. Plus, who cares how much higher it is? All the blood is tested for HIV and other diseases anyways. Every single bag is tested before it’s used so it’s not like it would use more resources or anything.
I’m glad I’m a lesbian. Heterosexual people are more likely to get HIV than me so we don’t matter in this situation. Oh and answering the actual question, no black people shouldn’t be excluded. I like giving blood and wouldn’t want that getting in the way.
How ’bout we reject the blood by disease and not by race/sexual orientation/etc, for fuck’s sake.
the article quotes risks based on race but how do we know people of that race are not already excluded from donating because of their MSM status?
just want to clear one thing up: he says in his article, “After all, the No. 1 reason you’re more likely to get infected by a gay
man than by a straight one is the already high prevalence of HIV among gay men.” UH, NO. it’s not only the already high prevalence that results in increased transmission of HIV in MSM population, but also the fact that biologically the rectum cannot withstand the shear stress of sex and is more susceptible to tearing. it has a high concentration of white blood cells and the main function of the rectum is to absorb fluids. that’s the reason, unprotected anal sex is the riskiest behavior when it comes to contracting HIV. (source)
the risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis etc, through donated blood is something like 0.000001. why fix something that’s not broken. the system works the way it is, i’d hate to see it change for the worse.
@JadeMaster2 - lolz
@SexyGamerGirl - Because there is a window between the time of contracting HIV and it showing up in blood tests. It can be years before it shows up, so it’s not reliable to do blood tests.
Geez, did no one learn this in health class?
@SeeBeeWrite - Nah I never payed attention. It was too boring. I just stuck around to learn how to put on a condom. That’s all I needed to know.
@SeeBeeWrite - And if that’s the case then no one should donate blood because anyone could have AIDS and it could not show up in the test.
@SexyGamerGirl - It’s simple statistics. If a group is much more likely to have HIV, don’t take the blood, and prevent a lot of problems. It’s sad, but it’s the best option.
@SeeBeeWrite - It’s discrimination. It’s that there are people who are gay who have perfectly healthy blood and are willing to give it. Because I’m the type of person who won’t give my blood because of my fear of needles. Healthy blood is healthy blood. Shouldn’t be discriminated against.
@SexyGamerGirl - I don’t give a fuck about discrimination when it comes to the interest of public safety.
@SeeBeeWrite - Angry much? lol
Test
1. No. The stats are hard to wade through, but only 3% of all blacks have HIV/AIDS.
2. You’re way more at risk of HIV/Aids if your gay, than if you’re black: A recent CDC study in five US cities found 1 in 4 gay men were HIV positive – and about half of them weren’t aware of their status. If you’re black and gay, now that’s a real problem (twice as likely as white and MSM).
3. They do test blood at the blood donation centers, but Gay men were using blood banks as a place for free HIV testing — and with that 1 in 4 chance of being HIV positive…need we say more?
To me, it seems as if this is discriminatory against gay people.
See, everyone’s blood is tested for HIV, etc. before usage. So why deny a gay man’s blood, but not a black man’s?
Because racism is a big deal these days. Everyone knows it’s BAD. The
FDA will be looked down upon and possibly sued for being racist, but
that won’t stop them from being prejudice against gay people.
*sigh*
No, only green ones.
It might be that they automatically reject it due to the cost of running the test. Not sure, though.
They rejected me for having a tattoo. I have to wait at least a year after a tattoo or piercing to give blood because California doesn’t crack down on health standards for tattoo shops.
We should just ask the blood if it has AIDS and then give it to orphans.
No, they should just test it. They NEED the blood.
I learned in my human sexuality class that there are higher incidents of AIDS in straight people than in homosexuals. Since they do thorough testing on blood, I would hope that they get rid of that deferral soon.
everyone’s blood should get rejected
unless they are ginger
@Shades0f_Grey - that’s good to know! fucking a I was gonna get a cali tat!
Though I don’t agree with it. The FDA says it’s not just HIV/AIDS that is higher in prevalence among gays. There are other diseases that may or may not be transmitted. They don’t HAVE tests for every disease. They don’t have the resources to test every blood donation with every test that IS available. So yes, it’s discriminatory and it sucks, but the health care industry doesn’t care if they hurt your feelings as long as the system is good enough.
i don’t think anyone’s blood should be rejected if screening procedures were properly implemented. unfortunately,i’ve been reading too may case studies of patients who got HIV via contaminated blood. =/
No, but then I don’t really think we should reject gay people’s blood either. Maybe they should have to be tested first.
Cut back on possible malpractice suits: BYOB. Hobos and youngest siblings beware.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned already but Red Cross Fined $16 Million For Sloppy Blood Screening The FDA has cited the Red Cross a dozen times already and fined the group over $21 million since 2003. So it doesn’t matter from whom the blood comes from, they can’t seem to screen the blood properly anyway.
@PervyPenguin - Amen.
Everything has to be about discrimination now a days!
With statistics such “60x more likely to have HIV”, it is not cost or time effective. The blood is tested to make sure it is good… but, is it really effective if we draw all this blood, and end up having to through out so much of it, just so that we don’t offend someone? And “60x more likely” is not anything close to “7x more likely”. Those are drastically different numbers.
Get over it. It’s not about discrimination, it’s about the health and effectiveness of resources
@the_evil_tamica - There are higher numbers of straights with HIV than gays… because the straight population is much larger. If you have 100,000 ppl… and 5000 of them have HIV, that is 5%, On the other hand, if you have 1000 ppl who are gay, and you have 300 with HIV, that is obviously a lot smaller number, but much greater percentage (30, which is only 6x the percentage of straights)!
.
Nobody’s blood should be rejected. Everyone’s blood is tested anyway.
No
they shouldn’t immediately reject anyones just because of their race or lifestyle, they should be tested for HIV first, and then decided.
@haloed - That’s reason for a temporary deferral (at least, in the U.S.). It’s much easier for women to get rejected because of low iron levels, because they…y’know… bleed profusely for a week out of every month.
I love this question. It has always annoyed me. And I suspect that the 60x is probably a lower statistic now than it was in the 70′s/80′s, when HIV was just emerging.
Neither should be rejected.
Uhm I think it’s a little too unfair. Just because someone is black, doesn’t mean s/he has HIV.
@Colorsofthenight - you got some real issues
· When you participate in unnatural lifestyle that can infect millions of people because of your perversion than I say no. If you getting AIDS from drug use. The black population has a high # of cases because of drug use. I had cancer and I can not give it doesn’t bother me.
no, they should not reject blood from homosexuals either. They should just make sure the blood is properly tested. The Red Cross was just fined for not doing so.
My problem with excluding gay men is that they test for HIV (along with a slew of other diseases) for every single donation. My blood is perfectly clean, but they still test it every time I give blood. I know that they don’t want to expose their employees to HIV infected blood, but most of the gay men I know are HIV negative and they get tested for that regularly. The gay men I know wouldn’t even try to give blood if they were HIV positive. I think people are a lot more informed now days, so this rule should be repeals. So, to answer your question: No, black people’s blood should not be rejected (and neither should gay men’s).
I should also mention that I have never given to the Red Cross…
These are the restrictions on donating blood:
<li> You are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977.<li> You have ever used illegal or non-prescription drugs by needle.<li> You have been the sex partner of a male or female prostitute
within the last 12 months.<li> You have AIDS or one of its symptoms.<li> You are a person who has been given money or drugs for sex in
the past 12 months.<li> You have ever had a positive test for the HIV antibody,
indicating past exposure to the AIDS virus.<li> You have taken clotting factor concentrates for bleeding
disorders, such as hemophilia.<li> You are/or have been the sex partner of any persons described
above in the past 12 months
So unless an individual black donor also fits into one of the above categories, he or she is not at any higher risk for AIDS than a white donor who doesn’t fit into any of the above categories. There’s nothing sinister behind the restrictions. If black people as a group are statistically more likely to have HIV than white people, that has no bearing on whether or not it’s safe for an individual black donor to donate blood. Technically, a gay man who hasn’t had sex with another man in the last 40 years could donate blood, but I understand that’s a somewhat academic point.
Of course! Everyone knows that if some black people have HIV, it means that all black people have HIV and therefore their blood should be rejected. Just the same as all gay people, because they all have HIV too. Obviously HIV is only a gay/black person disease.
I don’t think we should reject anyone’s blood. We have the means to test blood for HIV anyway, so why bar anyone from giving blood? You’d figure they’d want as much as they could get, since they have a blood shortage.
They should just freaking test the blood and let everyone donate. Sheesh.
Only if they’ve had gay sex since 1977. Would you want to receive blood from someone who is sixty times more likely to have HIV? Sometimes the tests DON’T detect it. This isn’t discrimination or racist (the two most overused and abused terms available). This actually has scientific reasoning behind it. Gays in the military, on the other hand, shouldn’t be rejected.
@catman517 - no, I’m honest and don’t work off of emotional appeals. Nor do I value our pathetic species.
Dunno, dude, I just dunno.
I am a med lab student and I have taken alot of transfusions classes. I even think that gay people should not be deferred from donating blood. I think that the window period that they can should just be controlled. On the questionaire they should ask If you have had sex with a man within 3 months or something. With the new technology HIV AIDS can be detected within.. 12 days of contracting it I believe. Of course this depends on blood levels, sometimes it may be present but in very low levels to start so it may not be detected with the regular screening process as different donors blood is pooled for the screening. They should just control the time, not permanently defer people for their sexual orientation or skin color.
You’re missing something, it’s not stated as gay people. Isn’t it just a man who has had anal sex with another man? I’m not even sure if it involves oral.
I don’t see why they should reject gays/blacks because what will happen if someone with HIV gets into a car accident. Where will they get the HIV infested blood to help the HIV dude live? Grant it, he has little years ahead of him isn’t it important to transmit blood to him as well as it is to someone without HIV?
@ukus - So the percentages are all that count, even though it makes just as much sense to ban straight people from donating blood because technically they are the largest population with AIDS incidences?
Let’s not forget that anal sex isn’t the only way people get AIDS…
No, I think that both things are ridiculous. If you want to give blood and you are homosexual, just don’t put down your sexual orientation if they make you fill out a form, and don’t tell them. How are they really going to find out? And I read somewhere that most of HIV/Aids positive people aren’t homosexual, but… I can’t remember where, so don’t quote me >_<
Man I think the American Red Cross Blood drive is run by vampires! They call here a few times a month wanting my father in law to donate blood. He does donate when he can but they never stop. I say that if a persons blood is healthy then they shouldn’t discriminate. They are supposed to screen it to begin with.They don’t test blood for Lymes Disease either and more people have contracted that from bad blood yet they don’t mention that. Sorry for ranting a little too much sugar today. shhh!
@the_evil_tamica - That makes no sense whatsoever. Straights may have the largest population… but lower percentage. Group A has 200 people… 2 of which have HIV. Group B has 5 people. 1 of which has HIV. Do we exclued group A because they have 2 ppl with HIV since that is more than group B has? Yes, it is about percentiles… not just population numbers.
And people have to remember… taking blood and running tests on blood as well as disposal of biohazard substances involve money and time. If there is a population of people in which a large percentage of the blood is going to get disposed of after donation… it may not be cost or time effective for the usable amount of blood recieved from a given population.
lame. they test it anyway.
As long as that blood is tested and comes back safe I don’t care who it came from. If it is going to save a life use it for craps sake!!
I have seen only a few responses here that hint at the (statistically) important questions.
1. Are the 7X and 60X figures reasonable? Is there any practical way to accept donations only from subgroups of the indicated populations (Gay and Black) that would have reliably lower incidence?
2. How reliable is the testing procedure? In particular, how many “false negatives” does it generate? (i.e. how often will blood from an HIV positive individual get through the test?). Certainly the procedure isn’t 100% reliable- Given that, how much difference does 7X vs 60X make in terms of how likely a transfused unit is to contain transmittable quantities of HIV?
Of course, the answers to these questions also have to be weighed (using some judgment) against the benefit/cost aspects of restricting subsegments of the population from donating. (i.e. How many people may be denied lifesaving transfusions if fewer individuals are allowed to give blood.) The people setting up the screening rules have looked at these data. (I haven’t, and neither have most/all of the commentators here.) They have (presumably) considered this information in setting the rules. If they haven’t, then some intelligent complaint is possible. Otherwise, you’re just making noise. . .
I haven’t done extensive research on this topic, and I am by no means an expert. However, the mistaken notion that many readers seem to have that HIV tests on blood are infallible is a bit disturbing. I thought I’d put in my two cents on the topic. (Ok, maybe it ended up being like 50 cents…I got a little carried away.)
It seems that the Western Blot is typically used to test for HIV (your body makes special antibodies against the virus, and this test shows whether you have those special antibodies or not).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test#Western_blot
The false negative rates (this means that the test tells you that the sample doesn’t have HIV, when it actually does) for this test is about 0.003% for the general population. If the tests are repeated (so, test the sample twice), then the false negative rates are reduced to 0.0004%. I don’t know how many times blood banks test their blood for HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test#Accuracy_of_HIV_testing
According to the redcross, only 3 in every 100 people in the U.S. donate blood every year.
http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d8aaecf214c576bf971e4cfe43181aa0/?vgnextoid=d0061a53f1c37110VgnVCM1000003481a10aRCRD
There are 307,006,550 people in the U.S.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=US+population
This means that about 9.2 million people in the U.S. donate blood every year.
This means that there are about 276 false negative blood donations if blood banks only test for HIV once and about 37 false negative blood donations if blood banks test for HIV twice. Each donation is about 1 pint. According to the Red Cross, 1 pint of blood can help up to 3 people, and the average blood transfusion requires 3 pints of blood.
http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-facts-and-statistics
So, in a worst case scenario, if blood banks only test for HIV once,presently there are 828 people who are infected with HIV in the U.S. every year due to blood transfusions. If blood banks test for HIV twice, then there are 111 people who are infected with HIV every year due to blood transfusions. In a best case scenario (1 blood transfusion = 3 pints of blood), 92 people are infected if blood banks only test for HIV once and 12 people are infected if blood banks test for HIV twice. That’s not a lot of people statistically, but it would suck if it was you. These are the rates with rejection of sexually active male homosexuals and with the inclusion of peoples of African descent (mostly African Americans) except for West Africans who are rejected under current protocols.
It takes anywhere from 2 to 8 weeks for HIV levels to be detectable by testing after exposure.
http://www.hivtest.org/faq.cfm#exposure
Personally, I think that this sort of group-rejections somewhat unnecessary (at least for HIV/AIDS, less so for other diseases like Mad Cow, etc.) more because of how they’re rejecting people. The question should be edited to something like the following:
“Are you a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (even if you
used a condom)? Have you had this kind of sex anytime in the last 8 weeks? If so, you are not eligible to donate blood. If you have ever had this kind of sex, have you had an HIV test 8 weeks after the last encounter? If your test was negative, you are eligible to donate blood. If you are in a committed monogamous relationship and both you and your partner have negative HIV tests 8 weeks after your last encounter outside of this relationship, you are also eligible to donate blood.”
But maybe the Red Cross just decided that that was a little too complicated. You could also require people in high risk groups to have documentation of their HIV test.
According to the article, most sexually active homosexual men know that they’re HIV positive anyways and wouldn’t donate blood regardless. Someone who really wants to donate blood but is restricted due to the group that he/she has been categorized could still do it; it would just be more of a hassle.
If officials decide that black people in general are a concern due higher incidences of HIV, then a similar restriction could be placed on that people group. West Africans and anyone who has sexual activity with someone from West Africa are already rejected according to current protocols. I believe that instead of instantly rejecting everyone from that people group (depending on the disease), it would be better to require people within those people groups to bring proof of a blood test from within the last couple weeks of them having sex. This would give people who have ‘clean blood’ the opportunity to donate safely.
(Is anyone getting riled up about sex workers being discriminated against (even reformed ones)? What about people who just got their ears pierced? Or what about people who lived in the UK for 3 mo.+ between 1980-1996? No! Because there is a significantly higher risk of various diseases associated with these groups of people. However, it is important to note that where the ‘higher risk’ line should be drawn is a separate question.)
So because the FDA is doing what is safe, you want to piss off at black people….for what reason? IDK. But not all black people sleep around or have unprotected sex. But gay men do hook up at every chance in gyms, restrooms, truck stops, etc. Blood from a gay woman is even safe too. And the statistics for AIDS infected whites are not always reported accurately.
@trunthepaige - I absolutely agree.
@Maha75 - Their reason for blood of people below 100 pounds being rejected is for health and safety concerns for the donor, as they have to donate quite a bit of blood, rather than a worry of HIV-infected blood.
if the prevalence is that high, it seems like it would put an unnecessary burden on companies involved in the donation process. it would increase the cost of procedures involving blood transfusions just to cover operating expenses.
i think they should do it however they feel works best. if you have to pay 60x as much for a blood transfusion, you’d ask questions.
@whoosh90 - awww…
Thank you for explain me! But i know that… 
I work in my back, as “helping Hand” in a child hospital. Regards from Switzerland Maha
@royal_diadem - Just a question here, not a judgement or anything else. Are you saying that Gay men are less likly to have sex without a condom than str8 men?
Both sides of the situation are ridiculous. If they’ve got HIV don’t let them donate. If they don’t have it, let them donate. Its simple.
@TheWorldIsA__Vampire - You do an antibody test. That test has a window between being infected and the body producing antibodies. During that window (22days) you have HIV, but the test will have negative results. So it is still important what a donor has been doing the last month.
ummm don’t they test for diseases and shit?
@lil_fire_bella - too bad “they” don’t see it that way. it really is that simple!
Show me the proof, that’s what I say, if someone our there can prove anything about this, then maybe I’ll buy it. But really gay blood is rejected? Heterosexual women are just as likely to be HIV positive as gay men. Should women’s blood be rejected than too?
I think EVERY 1 has the right to give blood. gays,Bi’s,blacks,whites,mexicans.. whatever.. As long as there healthy enough to do so… & they test the blood & someone with Aid’s im sure isnt dumb enough to give blood if they know they have it.. I mean seriously… & if they have the inactive virus the red cross can call them & let them know… But there so short blood supply.. Every 1 should have a chance…
……………..
I think all blood should be tested.
yes.
if the FDA rejects blood donated by gays/blacks, they should reject blood from anyone who has ever had sex.
it upsets the SHIT out of me that people honestly are not allowed to give blood based on their sexuality. are you SERIOUS? just because they have a higher rate of aids doesn’t mean that all of the “gay blood” is fucking bad. every stupid blood sample goes through testing to check for transmittable diseases, which, HELLO, include HIV.
What will happen to my blood after I donate?
Each blood donation is assigned a unique computer barcode number, which will identify it throughout its path from the donor to a hospital patient. Immediately after the blood donation, the blood is placed in transport containers designed to keep it at a safe temperature until it reaches a Red Cross component laboratory. Samples of the blood donation are simultaneously sent to one of nine Red Cross National Testing Laboratories to be tested for transmissible diseases. In the component lab, the blood is separated into its components: red blood cells, platelets and plasma. The products are then placed in quarantined, temperature-controlled refrigeration units until the test results are received (usually 12-16 hours later) and the blood can be released for distribution or destroyed. From local distribution centers, the blood is transported to hospitals based on patient need. Hospital personnel then transfuse the blood or blood products to a patient in need.
http://www.givelife2.org/donor/faq.asp
each blood sample is tested. so WHY can’t gay people give blood?! just because more of it will be unusable that doesn’t mean that every gay person should be unable to give blood. and now they’re trying to limit blacks? you must be kidding. all the fucking red cross keeps saying is that they need people to donate and not a lot of people are coming forward; maybe it’s because they’re being completely discriminatory!!
i am not able to give blood due to weight restrictions. other people have diabetes or cancer. others still have low iron levels. so everyone that cannot give blood + the gay community and now they’re trying to add blacks into the majority of people who are unable to help save lives? i hate whoever tried bringing this up at a meeting. it’s messed up… and they wonder why only 3 out of every 100 people donate. the other 97 either are afraid or aren’t allowed. >:(
btw… mini is not meant to cause controversy because the person is black… but it IS strangely ironic.
HIV can come from anyone so why discriminate? We have the technology to check so let them donate. I can understand if this was a long time ago but we have advanced since then.
I was gonna ask the same thing.
@ETCACTOR - no i meant that if gay men have sex with a condom that would not be risky behavior.
60x more likely and 7x is kind of an enormous difference.
as for everyone whos saying you can test the blood and blablabla…have you not heard of a dormancy state for the virus? hello? anybody?
its not like being homosexual is the ONLY reason you get turned down. you cant if youve been to a lot of other countries (again because things have dormancy states), recent surgery (wonder why…oh right. dormancy.), tattooing (wow. AGAIN. i think i see a theme. maybe there is some logic to their standards), doing illegal drugs (its not JUST the drugs in the system that theyre worried about). the odd men out are anemia, thyroid problems, obviously sickle cell, and being underweight. that just makes sense. cant have defective blood, and cant have people passing out constantly…
if you think the standards should be changed, how about you try to get through all the bureaucratic BS that health care professionals do to get anything accomplished. sure things are outdated. if you think you have a better idea, make a petition, get it signed, take it to the red cross, and see if they dont have a valid argument against it or say “sorry, im not qualified to make that change.” until then, id say the bars on donating do SOMETHING for our safety at least until there is quicker testing that doesnt involve a western blot and an ELISA plus worrying about dormancy.
Only if it’s tainted.
@royal_diadem - Thanks for the clarification!
My whole family can’t give blood bc we all lived in Europe during the early 1990s with the mad cow disease scare. They incubation time for the disease isn’t known and there is no blood test for it. The risk of eating contaminated meat is so low…lower than HIV transmission rates. My whole family use to give blood until that regulation was passed. It’s an issue of public health not discrimination…
What? No! Thats ridiculous, I can understand back in the 80s when HIV was new and was poorly understood. We have great technology now to detect these things earlier. Thats so weird cause i know of plenty of gay people who have donated. There is just questionare on the screen before you donate that asks questions.. Its not like they go.. Listen.. you seem a bit .. you know.. dont make me say it. Ummm.. maybe you can just out juice and cookies ok?
As a dad of a little Warrior that has fought several battles with cancer, I can’t thank blood donors enough. My son Eli has had more blood transfusions than I can count over the last 3 1/2 years in his fight. From my point of view, I do worry about blood-transmitted diseases such as HIV. I know that blood is screened before it is given to the recipient. Knowing this, I just can’t understand why perspective blood donors are turned away. I don’t think blacks or gays should be rejected because of their race or sexual orientation. We have been lucky enough for Eli to have had the blood products he needs within hours of when he needs it. There are so many people that need blood products, why turn away the large number of gays or blacks that have clean, healthy blood and are willing to donate?
The owner of the
Coach Wallets
got his inspiration from a baseball glove – the quality of the material and the softness of the leather. He then decided to incorporate the same material into his handbags. And sure enough, he was right.Since that time,
Coach Hamptons
have become an icon in the bag market. If you are a serious handbag buff like us, I’m sure you have one or a couple of them in your closet. We think that a
Coach Legacy
or purse can make an absolute difference in just about any outfit.
Besides, manufacturers will not have to spend much effort and money to make disks of this type.
UCKMAN
is also supported by some major studios, such as New Line Cinema, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios ? Warner Bros (however some of them support both formats) and IT giants such as b>Intel and Microsoft.Unfortunately, multi format drive that could support both Blue Ray and
DUCKMAN DVD
will be very expensive and difficult to manufacture due to large differences in technology behind new standards. However, several companies already have announced the development of such devices. If they succeed, we can hope that new formats will be widely accepted very soon. If not, there is a certain chance that
DUCKMAN DVD COLLECTION
and Blue Ray will share the destiny of DVD-Audio and SACD and only few chosen ones will use them.
Just visit an
christian audigier
store in person or online choose from the variety of products, colors, designs and if it is festival time then ensure you get your discounts. Now go ahead sport the urban cool look with Ed Hardy!If you are interested in the rock and roll style and fashion, the
hardy shirts
is the right option for you. In fact this line of dressing collection had been inspired from a rock star Christian Audigier and tattoo artist
hardy shirts
. As a result, you can expect the rock star look in this dressing collection.