Are you for or against homosexual/bisexual men from donating blood?

In the United States, deferral is based on FDA-defined high risk activity, not sexual orientation. Homosexual/Bisexual males who have not engaged in MSM activity since 1977 are not deferred from volunteer blood donation.

Blood donation eligibility guidelines are determined by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), a division of the Food and Drug Administration. While current FDA regulations require indefinite deferral for any male-sex-male (MSM) contact, even once, since 1977, The American Red Cross and America's Blood Centers (AmericasBlood.org) have both requested changing the deferral to 12 months since last contact. Canada just changed the deferral period to 5 years and the United Kingdom changed the deferral to 12 months in 2011.

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 proven case of post-transfusion HIV since 2002 was 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, honest answers to the donor questionnaire 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...

I'm a bisexual man who's had sex with other men, and I lie on the Red Cross's questionnaire to donate plasma. I think civil disobedience is justified in order to save lives. I live in the United States, and here it's not the Red Cross's fault I have to lie, but the FDA's guidelines which are antiquated, homophobic, and not based on solid science and epidemiology. In the United States, you are not allowed to give blood or blood components if you've had sex with another man even once since 1977, which is beyond absurd. They only defer people who've had sex with prostitutes and HIV+ people for a year. Yes, it's true men who have sex with men are much more likely has a demographic to be positive for HIV, but the same is true of black women and there's not a blanket ban on black women donating blood.

Take me, for example. I get tested every three months for HIV every three months, I'm on prEP (which is basically the birth control pill for HIV and is 90-98% effective in studies), and I only ever have oral and anal sex using a condom. I am extremely low risk for developing HIV--in fact, the only way I'd be safer is if I was completely celibate. It's pretty clear that the policy banning men like me (unless we lie) is harming way more people than it hurts. I would support a policy that defers you for a year if you've had sex with multiple men without wearing condoms or being on something like prEP, which would be a much more scientifically sound way to screen for the virus.

When people are monogamous - whether gay or straight - there should be no problem with them giving blood. Besides there are really simple tests to do on blood and blood products to make sure they are safe. I sexually active heterosexual is just as likely to pass on the virus as a sexually active homosexual, so the short answer is I am in favour of monogamous homosexual/bisexual men donating blood. As long as an individual tests negative for the HIV virus and all other STIs then they should be allowed to give blood.

Against. It is simply false that donated blood can be "checked" to ensure no communicable disease lurks. Given the higher prevalence of HIV and STD and hepatitis (the known diseases) in these groups, the only thing that makes sense is to disallow them as source of donated blood. Yes, I know this is judgmental but facts have a pesky habit of being difficult to ignore.

I dont actually understand why they can't. If there's a scientific reason why it would be unsafe, then I'd bow to it. But if there's no logic behind it, well it's just stupid.

For

Blood is always checked and you would never know where that blood came from.