I find the year "acceptible" as it means that you can have unsafe sex and then give blood (although i rather none of it together). but a lifetime - it just open to abuse and if you get raped by the same sex you can never give blood which is really bad!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Blood donor eligibility
- Thread starter Doctor Q
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lifetime blood donation ban on gay men in the U.S. lifted
FDA Press Release: FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg's statement on FDAs blood donor deferral policy for men who have sex with men
This puts the U.S. in line with policies in the U.K. and much of Europe.
After 31 years with a lifetime MSM ban, the change will make about 5.5 million American, who were previously barred as donors, now eligible to donate blood. Some people still decry the FDA's reliance on group statistics to bar MSM men who are sexually active, rather than considering individual factors like monogamy vs. promiscuity (which could be applied to donors of all sexual orientations), the potential increase of 2@ to 4% in the nation's blood supply is a welcome improvement for people in need of blood and platelets.
Technically, the FDA is only recommending the change in policy for sometime in 2015, but I think it will be adopted.
There's an active MacRumors discussion about the FDA press release here:
FDA Press Release: FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg's statement on FDAs blood donor deferral policy for men who have sex with men
This puts the U.S. in line with policies in the U.K. and much of Europe.
After 31 years with a lifetime MSM ban, the change will make about 5.5 million American, who were previously barred as donors, now eligible to donate blood. Some people still decry the FDA's reliance on group statistics to bar MSM men who are sexually active, rather than considering individual factors like monogamy vs. promiscuity (which could be applied to donors of all sexual orientations), the potential increase of 2@ to 4% in the nation's blood supply is a welcome improvement for people in need of blood and platelets.
Technically, the FDA is only recommending the change in policy for sometime in 2015, but I think it will be adopted.
There's an active MacRumors discussion about the FDA press release here:
The wheels slowly turn
Despite the press release last December, the only progress I've spotted from the FDA's recommendation is that the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) has promised to release a document called "Draft Guidance for Industry: Revised Recommendations for Donor Deferral to Reduce the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Transmission by Blood and Blood Products" to reflect the new recommendation sometime in 2015.
It has yet to happen in the 5 months since the Advisory Committee originally decided that the lifetime MSM ban should be eliminated.
Once they issue the new document, it's unclear how long it will be before blood centers will be free to implement the change and millions of previously barred donors will become eligible.
Despite the press release last December, the only progress I've spotted from the FDA's recommendation is that the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) has promised to release a document called "Draft Guidance for Industry: Revised Recommendations for Donor Deferral to Reduce the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Transmission by Blood and Blood Products" to reflect the new recommendation sometime in 2015.
It has yet to happen in the 5 months since the Advisory Committee originally decided that the lifetime MSM ban should be eliminated.
Once they issue the new document, it's unclear how long it will be before blood centers will be free to implement the change and millions of previously barred donors will become eligible.
The MacRumors 2015 Blood Drive has begun
The Sixth Annual MacRumors Blood Drive runs for the month of May 2015. See today's news story.
We ask you to donate blood and platelets this month, register for the bone marrow registry, and/or register as an organ donor. We welcome first-time donors and we'll be glad to explain what to do, give you tips, and congratulate you afterwards. Remember that every donor was once a first-time donor, and every donor is a hero every time they donate.
See the MacRumors 2015 Blood Drive! thread for details.
The Sixth Annual MacRumors Blood Drive runs for the month of May 2015. See today's news story.
We ask you to donate blood and platelets this month, register for the bone marrow registry, and/or register as an organ donor. We welcome first-time donors and we'll be glad to explain what to do, give you tips, and congratulate you afterwards. Remember that every donor was once a first-time donor, and every donor is a hero every time they donate.
See the MacRumors 2015 Blood Drive! thread for details.
Last edited:
That's funny. I was told I can't donate blood because I visited England and ate dairy and meat (fish actually). And it was delicious... 
Last edited:
it´s not homophobic. It´s for security reasons since the HI virus can stay recessive and break out in another blood flow.
That's funny. I was told I can't donate blood because I visited England and ate dairy and meat. And it was delicious...
Yeah, I'm gay so there's issues with that as well. I'm happy to keep my gay blood anyway
They continue to study the population statistics that underly donor prohibitions (certain medical conditions, sexual practices, travel to certain countries, and even the length of time you've spent in prison), and lump people into categories.
I find it interesting that they are also studying how often people lie on questionnaires or in interviews, and how that might be affected by policy changes. It's probably also affected by the way they phrase questions and whether you're interviewed in person.
I find it interesting that they are also studying how often people lie on questionnaires or in interviews, and how that might be affected by policy changes. It's probably also affected by the way they phrase questions and whether you're interviewed in person.
Yeah, I'm gay so there's issues with that as well. I'm happy to keep my gay blood anyway
And I figure that if I pay for the incredibly awesome French yogurt that I snarfed in England, it was totally worth it.
And given that American standards for dairy and meat products is so much lower than 'other there', it's perhaps all of the other foreign countries that should be blocking Americans from giving blood...
That's not quite accurate, if you're talking about the U.S. The current rule is based on sexual practices, not sexual orientation. For example, there are no restrictions on lesbian donors. The rules for transgender donors are confusing at best, with more restrictions on transgender women than on transgender men.Would love to... used to back in high school before I came out... now they won't accept blood from LGBT people anymore.
About 1500 gay and bisexual men participated in the "Gay Blood Drive" last year, where they each brought an ally (eligible donor) to donate blood. I believe they're holding another drive this year.
They also signed one of the petitions that added to the pressure on the FDA, and may have been a contributing influence to the FDA's plan to change the policy this year.
Last edited:
That's funny. I was told I can't donate blood because I visited England and ate dairy and meat. And it was delicious...
At this stage that's ridiculous. The BSE scandal was 20 years ago.
They don't know the incubation period for cjd and similar diseases have an estimated incubation period of up to 50 years. It is prudent to have restrictions in place when the restrictions have only tiny impact on blood supply.
Last edited:
The odd thing is that the EU has much higher standards for what type and condition the animals have to meet to be able to be slaughtered. Here in the hypocritical US, if they can get the animal to the slaughter shed, it'll end up in hamburger at the least. The slaughter of 'downer' cattle resulted in Japan barring US meat imports. 'Downer' cattle are too sick, or injured to make it themselves into the slaughter area. There are youtube videos of meat processors using forklift trucks to flip and move still living animals so they can be incorporated into the American food system.
Oh, and many plants are now 'self inspected'.
I no longer eat beef or pork, and only occasionally turkey. We are what we eat, and CJDV is not how I'd like to die...
But the whole dairy thing has me wondering... Is in 'Why?'
You mean, before he decided to come out. Or maybe before he realized he was gay. Point being, people don't "decide" to be gay... they are gay, and decide when to accept it/tell people/etc.
Fair point - bad wording on my part. "Realized" would be the proper word. I'm going to edit my post to reflect that.
Blood donor eligibility rules for MSM have changed in the U.S. The Food and Drug Administration announced revised recommendations that reduce MSM deferrals to 1 year. Last month the FDA, Red Cross, and America’s Blood Centers issued a joint statement saying that their blood donation centers will change to follow the new guidelines.
The eligibility rules have changed in Canada too. Prior to 2013, MSM donors were permanently deferred. In 2013 it was changed to 5 years. This year, Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec (the blood service in Quebec) are submitting a request to Health Canada (the federal health department) to change to a 1-year deferral. CBS and H-Q are now gathering data that could support a change to gender-neutral deferrals based on individual behavior and risk levels instead of on a broad MSM classification that rules out monogamous MSM.
In Australia and Great Britain, there has been no increase in the rates of transmissible diseases in blood donors since they switched to 1-year deferrals. This was part of the statistical evidence that led to the recent changes.
The eligibility rules have changed in Canada too. Prior to 2013, MSM donors were permanently deferred. In 2013 it was changed to 5 years. This year, Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec (the blood service in Quebec) are submitting a request to Health Canada (the federal health department) to change to a 1-year deferral. CBS and H-Q are now gathering data that could support a change to gender-neutral deferrals based on individual behavior and risk levels instead of on a broad MSM classification that rules out monogamous MSM.
In Australia and Great Britain, there has been no increase in the rates of transmissible diseases in blood donors since they switched to 1-year deferrals. This was part of the statistical evidence that led to the recent changes.
It takes 6 months to ensure tests to verify HIV antibodies are or are not in the bloodstream.
A 12 month abstinence before giving blood seems a little long, so why the extra delay just for one group of people?
Heterosexuals have gotten AIDS as well, like certain celebrities of recent and they're not gay, so why don't they have the same ban - no sex for a 12 month timeframe, no drugs, no anything else that can bring in HIV? That way nobody can scream "bigotry" or "special privileges".
Also of interest, since gay men are all angry over this, maybe there's emotional manipulation at work designed to compel gay men to not donate in a proud stance of boycotting since we all know that voting with our wallets works (except for when it obviously doesn't...)?
Either way, nobody knows for sure why 12 months are needed or why only gay men must wait, and how are facts checked to ensure Billy B. Bi hasn't bopped for that time period where as Henry H. Hetero can screw all he wants with as many women and go donate blood six days later so he can get a cookie and a band-aid? *FACEPALM*
[doublepost=1452996694][/doublepost]
In theory, that sounds nice. Wish it were that way for everyone but what you describe is quite the odds shattering situation. So I too shall present a couple of theories:
Zero risk? How much money should be bet on that since most of us don't like listening to details and watch absolute proof of how we know others' sex lives are truly THAT safe, noting I wouldn't want to hear every detail of every act heterosexuals do inside or outside a claimed monogamous relationship. Gays are no different than heterosexuals when it comes to the potential for infidelity, males moreso because the male is usually doing the pursuing and males typically want it all the time (unless alcohol or antidepressants kill the libido), pardon the sexism as I know that not all males are that caricature either or at least know how to keep it in their pants. Anyway, how do you know they've never ever cheated, where one partner doesn't tell the other and managed to make a lifetime of keeping secrets, since gay people often have to keep their orientation a secret for life though that's no longer something we have to do? I consider myself lucky my ex never gave me HIV (yes, he cheated and, yes I too am a guy (and bi and HIV-, thankfully), yes I do counseling of other gay people and what you say I find difficult to believe though I am not saying that scenario is impossible either, and, yes, I am lucky my ex felt guilty enough to tell me what he had done, albeit almost a year later after doing it - some scumbags don't bother to admit they were a complete (jerk) to someone they claim to love... Some people who are blissfully in relationships may not know about being cheating on, never mind contracting HIV until it's YEARS since exposure where symptoms start to show due to the immune system wearing down as a result of the virus...)
But you already said it, using heterophobia and inverse-homophobia (where all gay people are pristine and perfect by default) of all things. People of any orientation can cheat or be less than pristine. Your one couple as a reference is great but those two are not the whole of the gay community, much less the whole of the population. That one couple is a minority OF a minority. I know that because I am not hetero either, have counseled people in relationships, and listened to stories from every creed in the community... again, that is why a universal set of rules for all to obey need to be in place. One year abstinence for anyone wanting to donate, or six months since that's the time 100% of HIV blood tests are deemed 100% accurate. Any hetero that pumps his or her body with drugs could get HIV and donate a week later and the people running Red Cross wouldn't bat an eyelid. True myopia, worthy of "Idiocracy"...
I truly hope the people you describe really are that noble and ethical. Most gay men don't have it as easily as they had, either because they wanted it are were in the minority and spat on by fellow people in the community, or because they absconded "traditional mores" and decided they didn't have to be because there was no family as such and could be with anyone they wanted... and get to know people with HIV and really find out what being burned feels like. It's enough to make anybody abstinent.
The issue really is, regardless of orientation and if one wants to be mono or poly or whatever, there should be a universal set of laws for all -- since we both know HIV is not a "gay disease". Never was, even if gays had a higher proportion of incidents combined to numerous factors:
a. being < 10% the general population
b. are more likely to live in areas of familiarity with one another
c. engaging in unsafe acts, even out of depression, or inebriated, or high - because of persecution and other issues in a hostile society, anyone over 30 is more likely going to use drugs or booze as escape mechanisms. Today's kids have it pretty damn good in terms of acceptance, and even then...
d. refusing to live in a heteronormative way (e.g. family (even without kids, a couple can be a family of their own), monogamy, marriage for the sake of marriage and valuing one another - you will find a number of people who do not want marriage but openly say they used the fight to make it a law just to be perceived as first class citizens. I only fought for it before it became "cool" to do so and was told by too many gay men how marriage was a thing of the past, amongst other things...)
[doublepost=1452996901][/doublepost]
Yikes.
And to be fair, keeping the chances of impact down to zero percent is ideal. Irrational actions or not, there is no one side that deserves blame. It's all one big multi-layered tragedy.
A 12 month abstinence before giving blood seems a little long, so why the extra delay just for one group of people?
Heterosexuals have gotten AIDS as well, like certain celebrities of recent and they're not gay, so why don't they have the same ban - no sex for a 12 month timeframe, no drugs, no anything else that can bring in HIV? That way nobody can scream "bigotry" or "special privileges".
Also of interest, since gay men are all angry over this, maybe there's emotional manipulation at work designed to compel gay men to not donate in a proud stance of boycotting since we all know that voting with our wallets works (except for when it obviously doesn't...)?
Either way, nobody knows for sure why 12 months are needed or why only gay men must wait, and how are facts checked to ensure Billy B. Bi hasn't bopped for that time period where as Henry H. Hetero can screw all he wants with as many women and go donate blood six days later so he can get a cookie and a band-aid? *FACEPALM*
[doublepost=1452996694][/doublepost]
In theory, that sounds nice. Wish it were that way for everyone but what you describe is quite the odds shattering situation. So I too shall present a couple of theories:
Zero risk? How much money should be bet on that since most of us don't like listening to details and watch absolute proof of how we know others' sex lives are truly THAT safe, noting I wouldn't want to hear every detail of every act heterosexuals do inside or outside a claimed monogamous relationship. Gays are no different than heterosexuals when it comes to the potential for infidelity, males moreso because the male is usually doing the pursuing and males typically want it all the time (unless alcohol or antidepressants kill the libido), pardon the sexism as I know that not all males are that caricature either or at least know how to keep it in their pants. Anyway, how do you know they've never ever cheated, where one partner doesn't tell the other and managed to make a lifetime of keeping secrets, since gay people often have to keep their orientation a secret for life though that's no longer something we have to do? I consider myself lucky my ex never gave me HIV (yes, he cheated and, yes I too am a guy (and bi and HIV-, thankfully), yes I do counseling of other gay people and what you say I find difficult to believe though I am not saying that scenario is impossible either, and, yes, I am lucky my ex felt guilty enough to tell me what he had done, albeit almost a year later after doing it - some scumbags don't bother to admit they were a complete (jerk) to someone they claim to love... Some people who are blissfully in relationships may not know about being cheating on, never mind contracting HIV until it's YEARS since exposure where symptoms start to show due to the immune system wearing down as a result of the virus...)
But you already said it, using heterophobia and inverse-homophobia (where all gay people are pristine and perfect by default) of all things. People of any orientation can cheat or be less than pristine. Your one couple as a reference is great but those two are not the whole of the gay community, much less the whole of the population. That one couple is a minority OF a minority. I know that because I am not hetero either, have counseled people in relationships, and listened to stories from every creed in the community... again, that is why a universal set of rules for all to obey need to be in place. One year abstinence for anyone wanting to donate, or six months since that's the time 100% of HIV blood tests are deemed 100% accurate. Any hetero that pumps his or her body with drugs could get HIV and donate a week later and the people running Red Cross wouldn't bat an eyelid. True myopia, worthy of "Idiocracy"...
I truly hope the people you describe really are that noble and ethical. Most gay men don't have it as easily as they had, either because they wanted it are were in the minority and spat on by fellow people in the community, or because they absconded "traditional mores" and decided they didn't have to be because there was no family as such and could be with anyone they wanted... and get to know people with HIV and really find out what being burned feels like. It's enough to make anybody abstinent.
The issue really is, regardless of orientation and if one wants to be mono or poly or whatever, there should be a universal set of laws for all -- since we both know HIV is not a "gay disease". Never was, even if gays had a higher proportion of incidents combined to numerous factors:
a. being < 10% the general population
b. are more likely to live in areas of familiarity with one another
c. engaging in unsafe acts, even out of depression, or inebriated, or high - because of persecution and other issues in a hostile society, anyone over 30 is more likely going to use drugs or booze as escape mechanisms. Today's kids have it pretty damn good in terms of acceptance, and even then...
d. refusing to live in a heteronormative way (e.g. family (even without kids, a couple can be a family of their own), monogamy, marriage for the sake of marriage and valuing one another - you will find a number of people who do not want marriage but openly say they used the fight to make it a law just to be perceived as first class citizens. I only fought for it before it became "cool" to do so and was told by too many gay men how marriage was a thing of the past, amongst other things...)
[doublepost=1452996901][/doublepost]
Yikes.
And to be fair, keeping the chances of impact down to zero percent is ideal. Irrational actions or not, there is no one side that deserves blame. It's all one big multi-layered tragedy.
I attempted over a decade ago to donate blood, but nobody wants mine because I lived in the UK before 1996. Even though my blood hasn't been touched by red meat in twenty years, never been in hospital, never had an infection worse than flu and pumps through a heart that runs 25 miles a week. Apparently the UK is getting along fine with all their mad-cowed blood donations coursing through the veins of patients. I guess maybe dying eventually from a disease that might not even be there is the preferred choice to dying immediately because the blood supply ran out. Pfft, your loss America. I'll still get yours.
I can't donate in the US either because of the total amount of time spent in Europe in my lifetime. Also related to BSE. That's another rule that's ripe for revision.That's funny. I was told I can't donate blood because I visited England and ate dairy and meat (fish actually). And it was delicious...
The question I'd like to see researched and addressed by the FDA in the U.S. and the equivalent organizations in other countries is this: What are the pros and cons of changing to a deferral system based on an assessment of personal risk for each individual, as opposed to the current system based on categorizations?
Would it be too expensive in time and labor? Would training screeners be prohibitively hard? Would it lead to more collection of unsafe blood? Or would it increase the overall blood supply, have no effect on safety, and eliminate all of the unfairness of a category-based system?
Would it be too expensive in time and labor? Would training screeners be prohibitively hard? Would it lead to more collection of unsafe blood? Or would it increase the overall blood supply, have no effect on safety, and eliminate all of the unfairness of a category-based system?