FDA eases restrictions on blood donations from gay men

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By MATTHEW PERRONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's three-decade-old ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men was formally lifted Monday, but major restrictions will continue to limit who can give blood.

The Food and Drug Administration said it is replacing the lifetime ban with a new policy barring donations from men who have had sex with a man in the previous year. While the one-year ban has been criticized by activists it matches policies in other countries, including Australia, Japan and the U.K.

Gay rights activists said the new policy is a "step in the right direction," but falls short.

"It continues to stigmatize gay and bisexual men," said David Stacy, of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group. "It simply cannot be justified in light of current scientific research and updated blood screening technology."

FULL story at link.


FILE - In this Dec. 20, 2011 file photo, donors give blood at a drive attempting to set a record for most single-day donations in Rutland, Vt. Federal health officials are lifting the nation’s 32-year-old lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men, but major restrictions will continue to limit who can donate. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File)

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/77e034a2ebc14658a48a7f4665560eb5/fda-eases-restrictions-blood-donations-gay-men

[tomm2thumbs]

1. So lonely men I suppose is what they are after.... (grin)

They are still "...barring donations from men who have had sex with another man in the previous year."

So I can picture the ads now.. "Hey! Are you someone who hasn't had relations in the past 365 days?! GREAT, you are sexless, gay and full of blood we kinda-sorta want."

Ugh.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

2. I still can't donate blood because I

lived in an area that experienced mad cow disease, and what are the odds of that?

I never realized how many restrictions there were until I took my daughter to donate blood. (I haven't been able to donate for decades.)

[tomm2thumbs]

4. I remember our office building manager wondering why I did not want to donate

They consistently put a lot of people in a bad place by making that a legitimate question to ask, with very personal answers that can affect one's employment. Now I guess people can say "I can't give blood because I slept with my husband one time last year... sound like a good reason?" LOL

From now on, I'm going to use the mad cow disease excuse and watch their eyes get large. ( o)( o)

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

5. It's really no one's business why a person can't donate

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/07/375671942/why-the-u-s-still-bans-blood-donations-from-some-u-k-travelers

"Rules governing who can donate blood in the United States have recently changed. But anyone who spent more than three months in the UK between 1980 and 1996 is still prohibited from donating. That rule is in place to minimize the risk of spreading Mad Cow Disease. Robert Siegel speaks with Dr. Lorna Williamson about how the risk is mitigated in the UK."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

8. In 1990, I had hepatitis A.

I'm completely recovered -- this is the variety of hepatitis one does recover from -- but I still can't donate, because my blood doesn't pass the hepatitis screening.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

2. Sorry for the double post

nt

[restorefreedom]

6. don't they screen for everything anyway?

whats with the draconian (but ever so slightly less draconian now) policy?

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. Yes, but there's always a chance

that a newly infected person could pass the virus on to someone else but not have enough HIV antibodies to test positive.

There are many reasons that a person will be rejected for blood donation. I couldn't give blood for a year because I had a roommate who had Hep C. Even thougj we were not intimate and I had not come in contact with any of her body fluids, I still couldn't until a year after I had moved out. I didn't look at it as discrimination. The safety of the blood supply is imperative. Since whole blood is often broken down into red blood cells, plasma and platelets, one tainted donation that somehow slips through the screening process could infect 3 people.

You don't have a constitutional right to be a blood donor.

[Skittles]

10. so a long-married faithful gay couple can be denied

whereas someone like Charlie Sheen (until his diagnosis) was A-OK to give blood

sorry, that is discrimination

[frizzled]

11. It's not always wrong to discriminate if it's based on actual risk

But in that case, the criteria should be as transparent as possible. Let's see the cost benefit analysis.

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. Charlie Sheen would have been disqualified

because he had sex with prostitutes, another high risk group.

[dsc]

15. only for a year

we were lifetime deferred until just recently.

[restorefreedom]

14. i remember the people who died from rabies

i think it was from corneas but i can't remember

i hope they keep making progress on the screening. the need for blood is always there.

[frizzled]

9. This is pretty much crap, since it bars monogamous couples (for example)

I'd rather they were just blunt about the whole thing and said "The following groups of people have a risk of such-and-such a percent of getting HIV in a year, and therefore we won't take their blood"

[Behind the Aegis]

12. YUM! Scraps from the table.

I am ever so full!



Sometimes "steps in the right direction" remind us how fucking far we still have to walk.