Poll: Gay men can't donate in U.S....!?

The FDA, particularly the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (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. A similar change was enacted in the United Kingdom last year.

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 activities, 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 consider this discrimination, it is in reality a response to epidemiological 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 in the publication listed below:

CDC "Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report" October 22, 2010 / 59(41);1335-1339

Specifics on the donor indicate unreported MSM 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.

Please visit the FDA web page, below, concerning MSM and volunteer blood donation.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccine%E2%80%A6

I have heard of this.

When you donate blood, they will ask you for your sexual orientation.

If you happen to be gay, they won't allow you to donate. Even though the blood that is being donated is screened, and the person does not have AIDS, the FDA still won't allow them to donate. I just find it straight up ignorant. Don't they realize that straights can catch AIDS too? The FDA is f*cked right up if you ask me.

This is why I live in Canada.

This indefinite deferral of gays from donating blood is one of the reasons why the country constantly experience blood scarcity. Considering the blood were thoroughly screened right after the donation and not all gay men have STD, the deferral period must only be given a specific number of time.

Gays who can't donate blood are strongly encouraged to volunteer instead. A lot of blood banks need your help. Blood banks need volunteers to complete paperworks, to file data, to mail letters, to encode data, to manage their small canteen, to entertain people in the waiting area, to answer important phone calls, to organize blood drives and to educate people about blood donation.

Scan the list of blood banks provided blow if you're interested to volunteer.

that is an thrilling theory, yet - what defines a gay guy? What about bisexuals and different borderline cases? What about men who do it for funds? how did you learn about the anal sex? you're going to remember upon him to admit it? what percentage will? what about different disadvantages - immigrants from extreme-chance countries, to illustrate? So, NO, i don't think of that is a sturdy theory. most suitable element is to objective ALL donated blood.

It's allowed in the UK.

You have some crazy laws, man. But I can see why they do it. Better to be safe than sorry - but they should also ban other high-risk groups like intraveneous drug users, and African women. Sometimes newly-infected HIV positive blood WON'T test positive straight away. So I can see why they do it.

But like I said, if you're gonna ban one high-risk group, ban them all - if not it's an outdated stereotype from the 80s GRID scare.

Ive heard of this. I am gay but I haven't donated because I just cant stand needles. I'd pass out, just something I cant really handle, even if i was straight.

It's stupid. I mean, I can kind of understand where they're coming from with the increased risk of HIV, and if it was contracted recently enough they wouldn't be able to screen for it very well, but...

IF I CONTRACTED HIV IN 1977, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETECT IT BY NOW!

It bothers me. It's like they're implying every gay man has an STD. They screen the blood for diseases anyway, that's just unnecessary.

gay men can donate blood they just dont let them donate if they had anal sex. but personally i think its stupid. everyone should be able to donate blood

but hey, i just tell them im straight

i don't think its necessary as they screen all the blood anyways.

i donate blood anyways, i just don't tell that im gay.