Can gay men seriously not donate blood?

All blood collection in the US, both volunteer and compensated, is regulated by the FDA, particularly the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). CBER has recently voted to maintain an indefinite deferral for any male-sex-male (MSM) that has occurred, even once, since 1977. However, the American Red Cross and America's Blood Centers have recommended decreasing the deferral period to one year from last contact.

Unfortunately, many do not understand the rationale behind the deferral guidelines. CDC data has consistently identified MSM as a significant risk factor for transfusion-transmissible diseases, especially Hepatitis B and HIV. As with other high risk activity, the guidelines are in place to protect not only the recipients of blood components, but also the collection, testing and nursing staff of blood centers and hospitals. While some may cry discrimination, this is in reality a response to epidemiologic data. Current blood donation screening using HIV Nucleic Acid testing (PCR) may detect viral RNA as early as 7-10 days post-exposure. HIV antibody testing, used in conjunction with NAT, can detect infection after 12-21 days post-exposure. It is this "window period', the time between infection and detection, that the FDA is concerned about. Though window-period donations are rare, the first case of post-transfusion HIV since 2002 was recently reported (see CDC link below). Specifics on the donor indicate unreported high risk activity over many years. Until pathogen inactivation technology has been perfected to treat donated blood components for transfusion-transmissible diseases, donor questionnaires and screening tests provide the best chance for a safe blood supply.

They talked about lifting that ban earlier this year, but then they had a reported case of infection and freaked out. It's a stupid, outdated rule. The BloodDoc makes some good points above. However, if the reason for the rule is to avoid donations from individuals that have been recently infected and are not yet testing positive, how does it make sense to ask about their entire sexual history? Don't you just need to know about the past 30 days?

You can now serve our country in uniform openly and proudly, but we still think your blood is icky. Absurd.

It's considering homosexual guys are "at larger hazard" of having stds so that they may not take our blood. Personally, I believe it is unfair and ridiculous, above all whilst they've a scarcity of blood donors and they're consistently in the market encouraging folks to donate. If I am ever requested I might regularly say I'm directly. I recognize I'm a virgin and blank, so why must I have my blood refused over anything as beside the point what gender I discover wonderful. It's regularly an overly old-fashioned legislation related to old-fashioned stories.

No exactly- only men who ADMIT to having sexual contact with another man since 1977. That can mean bi or experimenters, too, and I know for a fact many of such people have donated blood.

And yes, it is total BS.

Wow. That seems absurd, but I just can't believe that to be true, that they would actually ban gay men from donating blood.

They should just say" only healthy people can donate"

then that cuts out all the diseased.

Well since they test the blood anyways, it really dosen't matter. They never just put blood in the hospital right off. They give it very thorough test before it ever goes to a hospital