HEALTH US | FDA plans to change 'discriminatory and outdated' blood donation rules for gay men

et2

Has No Life - Lives on TB
US | FDA plans to change 'discriminatory and outdated' blood donation rules for gay men




The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reportedly debating allowing gay and bisexual men in monogamous relationships to donate blood without abstaining from sex, as required under the current guidelines.

A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report citing sources familiar with the plans said that the FDA plans to issue the new rules in the coming months.
Under the new guidelines, the donors would be required to complete an individualised risk assessment similar to that used by Canada.

Canada adopted its risk assessment form in September, however, it is not just for gay and bisexual men, rather it is applicable to donors of all genders and sexual orientations. The form asks uniform questions about a potential donor's medical, travel and sexual history.
Officials of the US FDA are still drafting its questionnaire and the guidelines.
WFJ citing an anonymous FDA official reported that the new assessment would most probably ask people about their sexual history over the past three months, including new sexual partners if any.

People with no new sexual partners in the past three months will be free to donate blood. Those who report new partners would have to answer follow-up questions like whether they engaged in anal sex or not.
Those with no anal sex encounters in the last three months will be allowed to donate blood, while those who reply yes to the question will have to wait another three months before being eligible to donate.
As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compared to other forms of sex unprotected anal sex carries a higher risk of HIV infection.
HIV Infection becomes apparent in three months, said the FDA official.

LGBTQ advocacy groups have for long said that the US policy is discriminatory and outdated, organisations like the American Medical Association, and the American Red Cross too have called for a policy change.
US blood donation policy was originally adopted in 1985 and it dictated that a gay/bisexual man will not be eligible to donate blood if they have had sex with another man even once since 1977. It came into force to protect the blood supply from HIV.
In 2015, the rule was amended and only men who have had a sexual partner of the same sex in the past one year were made ineligible to donate. During the pandemic due to a shortage of blood supply, this time period was further shortened to three months.
 

smokin

Veteran Member
You can refuse transfusion. If knowing of an upcoming surgery i believe you can store up your own blood ahead of time if needed in certain surgeries if worried about contaminated blood. Accidents and unforeseen injuries are a whole other story.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Owner donates blood. He says he get "dunned" all the time to schedule an appointment. Which generally he does.

Red Cross indicates that blood supply remains "short." MANY offers to Owner of "gift cards", "magazine subscriptions", "Dinner passes."

Of course "widening" the donor pool thus SHOULD have the effect of increasing the supply.

Except - aren't humans staying away from donation because of a continuing "Covid" fear? We are talking "communal" donations conducted "en-mass?"

And I'm sure the AIDS possibility NEVER EVER enters anyone's mind before signing up. Or not signing up.

Sometimes the irony is only exceeded by the inanity.

Dobbin
 

Barry Natchitoches

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Testing the blood and even for AIDS is a standard at blood labs .

Now what could go wrong with less controls on gay men providing blood?

Texican....
Well, that raises an interesting question: do hospitals or doctors offices test blood for AIDS on a routine basis, the way they test for kidney and liver problems and things like red and white blood cell counts?

I almost never see a doctor, so I really don’t know.

My wife does, of course, but I have never seen any bloodwork of hers that records the result of an AIDS test.

(She would register negative for AIDS if they did test her, but as I think of it, I don’t ever remember seeing any bloodwork that sounded like AIDS…
 

bev

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Well, that raises an interesting question: do hospitals or doctors offices test blood for AIDS on a routine basis, the way they test for kidney and liver problems and things like red and white blood cell counts?

I almost never see a doctor, so I really don’t know.

My wife does, of course, but I have never seen any bloodwork of hers that records the result of an AIDS test.

(She would register negative for AIDS if they did test her, but as I think of it, I don’t ever remember seeing any bloodwork that sounded like AIDS…
When I was still working (RN), if I stuck myself while drawing blood, starting an IV or giving an injection, an HIV test (and Hep A, B & C) would be done on me and the patient. We had to explain this to the patient and get their consent. Then I would be tested at intervals for up to a year.

If these tests were done, they would not have been readily available to staff.

This was a long time ago, so maybe things have changed.
 

raven

TB Fanatic
Choose any topic which relates to "Government Bureaucracy" . . .
got it?
The question is this:
Do you actually believe that the "technocrats" have the expertise to make a sound judgement?

And you realize that expertise is not the only trait necessary for sound judgement.
Do you actually believe the have the "moral fiber", the "character", necessary to make a sound judgement?
Do you believe they have the "strength of will" to resist the demands of their superiors who lack expertise and moral fiber?

Do you believe that those with expertise routinely falsify relevant data that those with character would use to make decisions.

The medical community has "sh#t in their own mess kit" when it comes to their bread and butter - trustworthiness.
 

desertvet2

Veteran Member
Now wait just one damned minute here...

If gays are born that way because they dont choose to be gay. Then does that mean it is "in their blood"? If so, then it might be best not to be getting any of it put in you, lest you develop an un natural craving for....:shkr:
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
In reality? What will probably happen is that they will let these groups donate (to placate their pizzing and moaning), but destroy the blood products as soon as the donor is out the door. Yeah...stupid, because it puts everybody who handles the donor and the blood at risk all through the process, but we live in crazy times, and these people MUST be appeased. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry kids...but if you want to be treated like everybody else, then BE like everybody else.
 
Last edited:

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
I do NOT CARE what your personal sexual proclivities are. I ONLY CARE if you attempt to force me to be involved. Until you attempt to FORCE me I will not take issue with what ever you may choose to do. I will treat you with the respect you deserve based on the level of respect you treat your self and others with. should you attempt to FORCE your views down my throat we will have a significant problem.

I have always believed that you should be COMPLETELY FREE to do WHAT EVER you may choose to do - so long as you don’t wake me when I’m sleeping or get blood on my house while you’re doing it.
 

Redcat

Veteran Member
Hubby and I have decided that we would only use each others blood if need arise. We are both O+.

Otherwise no. I had a small surgery a few years ago and told them then, "no tranfusion" and signed to that. Now it would be "hell no" unless my own blood saved or his.
 
Top