Donating Blood

[mikelan6]

Every so often, I pass one of those mobile buses with organizations asking for blood donors.

As a gay man, I know of the FDA regulation that gay men are banned from donating blood, so when asked, I just say no thank you and walk away, even though I would donate.

Have YOU done the same? Or do you lie and donate blood anyway?

It seems that this restriction should be removed as they say that testing is much better no than over 20 years ago.

Your thoughts???

[rpmdfw]

I always tell them that I'd love to donate, but because I'm a gay man they're not allowed to let me. Please let their superiors know that people like me would love to be able to help save lives as well.

I figure if enough of them tell the higher ups that gay men tell them that they'd donate, they eventually change their policy. They're always short on blood supplies. Why eliminate a portion of their potential donors? :confused3

[jenn&nelsonrego]

O.M.G. I never realized that you guys are not allowed to donate! Holy Crap! :eek: That is terrible. Diseases like HIV and AIDS are not "gay" diseases... Look at me... preaching to the choir... :goodvibes

I used to get a chuckle out of the question on the forms I was forced to fill out every two weeks so that I could have the honor of sitting on a machine that seperated my blood into useable components for 2 flippin hours. "Are you a man who has had sex with a man?" I was always so tempted to check off 'yes'.... :cutie: As fun as it would have been at the time, I am now seeing the bigger picture... Thanks again to you guys for teaching me so much over the last few months....

The Red Cross calls me regularly but because of my trying to get pregnant, I am never really eligible any more (becuase of the not knowing, etc.) I always tell them when they call that I cannot donate because I never now if I am pregnant or not... Now I will start telling them that I will not donate until they do something about those ridiculous regulations. :idea:

[PghLybrt]

I always tell them that I'd love to donate, but because I'm a gay man they're not allowed to let me. Please let their superiors know that people like me would love to be able to help save lives as well.

I figure if enough of them tell the higher ups that gay men tell them that they'd donate, they eventually change their policy. They're always short on blood supplies. Why eliminate a portion of their potential donors? :confused3

:thumbsup2

[DopeyDave]

I thought we (gay men) could still donate blood "for research." But alas, I had Hepatitis when I was younger, so that pretty much precludes me anyway.

[rpmdfw]

O.M.G. I never realized that you guys are not allowed to donate! Holy Crap! :eek: That is terrible. Diseases like HIV and AIDS are not "gay" diseases... Look at me... preaching to the choir... :goodvibes

I used to get a chuckle out of the question on the forms I was forced to fill out every two weeks so that I could have the honor of sitting on a machine that seperated my blood into useable components for 2 flippin hours. "Are you a man who has had sex with a man?" I was always so tempted to check off 'yes'.... :cutie: As fun as it would have been at the time, I am now seeing the bigger picture... Thanks again to you guys for teaching me so much over the last few months....

The Red Cross calls me regularly but because of my trying to get pregnant, I am never really eligible any more (becuase of the not knowing, etc.) I always tell them when they call that I cannot donate because I never now if I am pregnant or not... Now I will start telling them that I will not donate until they do something about those ridiculous regulations. :idea:

Jenn, please do not stop giving blood. I appreciate your sentiment, and undestand your reasoning, but they need donors FAR too much! And the life you save may be a gay guy that they wouldn't let donate. How's that for irony.

This is a very personal issue to me. My grandmother, uncle (my godfather and namesake) and brother all have or died from rare blood diseases. Blood donors have saved their lives or have extended/improved their lives. As far as I'm concerned blood donors are heroes. No ifs ands or buts.

With my family history of blood diseases, and the fact that I had hepatitis about 10years ago means that in all liklihood that I wouldn't be a suitable donor myself, and will never be able to "pay it forward" for all the blood that my loved ones have needed over the years. That upsets me. A lot.

So those of you who CAN and are allowed to donate, PLEASE DO! Feel free to tell them that you disappove of their discriminatory policies, but do not stop saving lives. It's too imporant that people donate.

Thank you. I'll step off of my soapbox now.

[sunnydoozer]

O.M.G. I never realized that you guys are not allowed to donate! Holy Crap! :eek: That is terrible. Diseases like HIV and AIDS are not "gay" diseases... Look at me... preaching to the choir... :goodvibes


Its not an issue they have with gay people per se. They'll still take blood from lesbians (but not straight women who are with bisexual men) and from gay men who have been celibate since 1977 (not sure how the wording goes in the states). They're just using cheap statistics and as rpmdfw said they're happy to give blood up for any gay people that might need it.

Honestly I worry more about what these rules do to the marrow registry too :sad2:

[jenn&nelsonrego]

Jenn, please do not stop giving blood. I appreciate your sentiment, and undestand your reasoning, but they need donors FAR too much!

Rob, that is not why I don't donate now... it is just the reason I am going to give them when I call. :goodvibes

Two weeks out of each month I don't know if I am pregnant (and with my fragile pregnancy track record -I won't do anything to jeopordize a potential pregnancy) and the other two weeks I am getting stuck with needles for bloodwork every three days. I cannot handle any more needles in my life right now... It may sound selfish to some but I am a Red Cross 5 gallon donor so I think I earned my selfishness... ;)

When I decide to get on my own soapbox to make a statement I try to make sure nobody gets hurt in the process. I always try to look at the greater good. I would never stop donating blood. I just need to get through my own issues right now before I can pick it back up. I used to go every two weeks.

They also will not let my husband donate. Because he spent over a certain length of time in Europe after 1980, he is ineligible. He was born in the Azores and lived there until 1992.

[zeitzeuge]

I have some friends who donate, but since the beginning they've always lied about their orientation. The first time you tell them you're a gay man, you're in the system and you'll never get out of it and in turn never able to donate blood. So stupid since all blood is tested and screened before ever being used. I hope this changes some day. It's not like we're living in the 80's anymore.

I can't tell you the number of friends who were turned away from blood drives, days after 9/11. They desperately wanted to help but couldn't.

We have a blood drive van that comes to work weekly. Irks me every time I have to walk past it.

[Stacerita]

Honestly I worry more about what these rules do to the marrow registry too :sad2:

The rules for marrow are different than blood donation. Strange as it is. I am not allowed to donate blood according to the rules of the Red Cross, but I am a bone marrow donor. Answered the questions exactly the same, and even brought up about me not being allowed to donate blood. They said it didn't matter to the bone marrow registry. The rules are different for whatever reason. But to be sure if you are not allowed to be a bone marrow donor you should check it out.

[npmommie]

Every so often, I pass one of those mobile buses with organizations asking for blood donors.

As a gay man, I know of the FDA regulation that gay men are banned from donating blood, so when asked, I just say no thank you and walk away, even though I would donate.

Have YOU done the same? Or do you lie and donate blood anyway?

It seems that this restriction should be removed as they say that testing is much better no than over 20 years ago.

Your thoughts???

Well you could be a gay celibate man who hasn't had sex in 30 years and they would let you donate :)
I don't think the questions are aimed at being gay so much as risky behavior, and I am not saying gay men indulge in risky behavior, i think its an antiquated way to assess.
what would be more helpful would be to question about unprotected sex in heterosexuals AND homosexuals.
you could be a gay man who always uses protection and be barred,but someone who is heterosexual with multiple partners who uses no protection can donate.


as far as testing the supply nothing is 100%, hence the questions. but i think the questions could do a better job at really zeroing in on who has risky behaviour.

[HappyDznyCamper]

Just wanted to remind everyone, it is the FDA, not the red cross, that makes the rules for donor blood. so complaining to your local red cross won't do much. Around here red cross doesn't do blood collections, a group called Medic Regional Blood Center does and they follow the same rules. At this point I have donated so many times I have the questioner about memorized.

[PHILCT]

I used to donate blood all the time, and whenever they called I went down immediately to the local donation center (I did enjoy the milk and cookies afterwards).

But one day they imposed the new rules in the 1980's that asked the question if you slept with other men. So I chose to just NOT come forward to donate blood after that, rather than have to be asked that question and be rejected. It is a rejection, no matter how much you sugar coat it.

But then the local Red Cross called me again, and again, and again, asking why I hadn't donated lately. And I would make every excuse in the book, but I did not want to be gay in the RED CROSS Database. The Red Cross didn't need to know about my sexuality, it wasn't any of their business.

I found it irritating the American Red Cross cleric would beg for a reason why I wasn't donating, and repeated over and over that I should not be worried I could catch AIDS from a blood donation. That really irritated me as it was like saying don't worry about catching AIDS, and still thinking they are eliminating me for possibly being one person who could potentially spread it in the blood system by chance. They can't have it both ways, ask me why I am not donating blood and warn me not to be worried about catching it if I donate blood!

If any organizationtion needed the policy DONT ASK DONT TELL, it was the American Red Cross. I understand there need to screen for blood, but I still hated them for asking Why I wasn't giving blood anymore, after a while I would think they would just have stopped calling and asking.

I am not against giving blood to them, I just never want to be asked again "Why don't you give blood anymore?" by some clerical person in the American Red Cross who does not need to know my sexuality for the records.

I'm not in the closet, I just don't feel obliged to tell the American Red Cross.

I do miss the milk and cookies.

[yasuern]

I have recieved numerous blood products including packed red blood cell, platlets and MOST importantly Bone Marrow.

As a recipient I signed a wavier basically saying if I should develop a disease secondary to recieving these products OH WELL.


I never thought twice - I also never asked Who donated the blood products - didn't care about their race gender or sexual pref. - I was/am just GREATFUL to all that did - ESPECIALLY the gentleman who donated his BM - because basically I could be dead now instead of going to WDW in less than 2 weeks.

SO PLEASE DONATE IF YOU CAN

Although since they do test blood products can't see any greater risk from receiving a gay mans blood than any other "group":confused3


Sue:goodvibes

[jlewisinsyr]

Never have donated because of discrimatory practices and I would never lie just to do so.

[NHdisneylover]

I am with Jenn on having been completely in the dark about this. I am so dissapointed in the FDA. I kind of get the rule having been in place early on when we still had little understanding of how HIV was transmitted and how to test for it--but these days:confused3:headache: I knew the questions werwe on the form but did not know you would be excluded for answering yes--just thought it might lead to some follow up questions or something.

I have not been able to donate since the Mad Cow rules went into effect--I lived in Europe for a year in the late 80s. They have changed the rules to lived here for 5 years now--but since we live here now--yeah I am a no go and I don't even eat beef:rolleyes: DH donated regulary right up until we came here. We have not figured out when/where to go here nor if we are eligiable in Germany but we are grateful to those that do donate; we have never needed blood but anyone could any time.

[LuvMy3Monkeys]

Well you could be a gay celibate man who hasn't had sex in 30 years and they would let you donate :)
I don't think the questions are aimed at being gay so much as risky behavior, and I am not saying gay men indulge in risky behavior, i think its an antiquated way to assess.
what would be more helpful would be to question about unprotected sex in heterosexuals AND homosexuals.
you could be a gay man who always uses protection and be barred,but someone who is heterosexual with multiple partners who uses no protection can donate.


as far as testing the supply nothing is 100%, hence the questions. but i think the questions could do a better job at really zeroing in on who has risky behaviour.

Forgive me, as I do not mean this being smart. But, I don't understand this reasoning. Is this really true? They do NOT let gay men donate blood? I don't understand this. Because they believe this "risky behavior" could cause the blood to be blood containing AIDS/HIV?

This is really sad. I feel like if they can make that determination, why not just stereotype the whole way around the table? Are they going to turn away a woman wearing go go boots and a leather mini skirt because she looks like she's been sleeping around? This just really is ridiculous. How do they determine you're gay? Do they ask you? I mean, wouldn't it be discrimination if they just said "oh, you're gay aren't you?" I have a gay friend who reminds me of the guy dressed as the fairy from chuck & larry and I have a gay neighbor who I would be willing to swear my life on that he's not gay, but he says he is. So how do they know who is who??? I don't understand this!

I do vaguely remember trying to donate my senior year of high school and was told no because I had gotten a tattoo within a certain time frame from that date... don't quite remember it. So, okay... probably TMI here... but if you tried to donate and stated you are gay and you and your partner have only slept with each other and noone else, would you be allowed to donate?

[LuvMy3Monkeys]

I can't tell you the number of friends who were turned away from blood drives, days after 9/11. They desperately wanted to help but couldn't.



That's very, very sad. :sad2:

[hematite153]

I don't donate because I've got an odd auto-immune disorder that isn't really properly understood. (Of course, they don't actual exclude me from their donor pool and would be happy to have my blood, but, it seems like I'd be risking the recipients' health and that seems unethical to me.)

Jenn -- I understand your current reasons for not donating. My DW used to donate monthly, but, hasn't for the past 6 years as we've been trying to get pregnant. She actually went to a clinic early in our quest and was told that although they wouldn't disqualify her they would prefer that she not donate until she was finished with fertility treatments because of both the risk to her and a possible pregnancy and the uncertainty of how fertility products might affect her donation.

As for the original question of what to say/do, I don't think I'd ever lie in order to donate. Just because someone (some organization/some law) is doing something unethical doesn't mean that I should as well. However, if someone stops you and asks you to donate, I don't think I'd let it slide and leave the impression that it was your own decision not to donate. Although the individual you are talking to has no power to change the situation you can still politely explain that you are not allowed to donate because of an antiquated rule that doesn't properly assess risk. The fact that there have been several people on this thread who didn't know about the restriction means that it's not enough part of the public conscious. If nobody questions things, they tend not to change, so, making sure people know about it seems like it can't hurt.

[TuckandStuiesMom]

You know the questions are pretty asinine -- not to mention embarrassing. All that stuff about having sex for money or drugs (asked by somebody my kids' age)... And then there's the one where they ask you if you have had sex with a man who has had sex with another man... How the heck (Language cleaned up here) would anybody know for sure? I always say "No" so I can just get the dang interview over and donate but I've sometimes kinda wish I'd had the gumption to ask... :sad2:

[DVC~OKW~96]

A nurse I once worked with was refused during a work related blood drive, simply because she asked questions. Seriously. They felt that given her questions she wasn't being truthful, which wasn't the case, she just wondered.

Man was she wicked pissed! :scared1:

[tig82174]

Just wanted to remind everyone, it is the FDA, not the red cross, that makes the rules for donor blood. so complaining to your local red cross won't do much. Around here red cross doesn't do blood collections, a group called Medic Regional Blood Center does and they follow the same rules. At this point I have donated so many times I have the questioner about memorized.

Actually this point about hte difference between it being an FDA rule and a Red Cross rule is correct....PARTIALLY. LGBTIQ healthcare equality & advocacy is actually the field in which I work professionally. (I have, ironically, just returned from the National LGBTI Health Summit in Chicago yesterday!) So I am often doing advocacy and education around the ban on gay and bisexual men's blood (and sperm, actually....we are not allowed to donate sperm in fertility clinics either unless our sperm has been requested by a specific recipient). The rule banning blood from any man who has had sex with another man since the year 1977 is, indeed, an FDA rule that the Red Cross is forced to follow. It is true that the Red Cross has publicly stated that they are in favor of revising the rule...HOWEVER, it is important to note that the last time the Red Cross proposed a revision to the rule, they recommended not banning all gay/bi men, but simply stating that they had to be deferred or one year from their last same-sex contact-----a "revised" policy that still effectively bans all sexually active adult gay/bi men from donating blood....even those who consistently practice sexual safety OR who are involved in long term monogomous relationships with an uninfected partner----so, in truth, this "lifting of the ban" is a semantic smoke screen. Others are absolutely right that questions used to defer potential blood donors should be altered to be more risk AND time-specific so that they fall in line with the science of HIV and blood testing.

I realize this is a touchy issue for many to talk about, but I also agree that our community and its allies need to hold both the FDA and the Red Cross' feet to the fire on this issue and lift the ban because not only does it perpetuate institutionalized homophobia, but it is largely scientifically unnecessary AND it is epidemiologically unsound.

1.) Scientifically unnecessary: The truth is that testing for HIV has improved exponentially over the past 3 decades. The most commonly used tests today can be accurate for a window as little as 21 to 90 days after infection and there antigen-based tests (which, I might add, the Red Cross USES!!!) that can detect even acute infection in less than a 21 day window. Testing can and does detect infected blood every day in this country----so enforcin a window of over 30 years or even one year is not needed.

2.) Epidemiologically unsound: The current rules are based on the presumption that gay and bisexual men are the group of people (or at least the ONLY group of people) who are likely to have an undiagnosed HIV infection which we know in this country is no longer always in case. Take, for example, the dramatic increases we have seen in the last decade (or more) of HIV infections of heterosexual African-American women. In truth, if the FDA/Red Cross, want to ban a community of people based on what is perceived as "statistical high risk" of HIV, then they should enforce a ban on straight Black women----and, of course, they would never do so (nor SHOULD they) because it is clearly racist and sexist....

...policies like this are rooted less in science than they are in bigotry and we have a responsibility to speak out against them!

[npmommie]

Actually this point about hte difference between it being an FDA rule and a Red Cross rule is correct....PARTIALLY. LGBTIQ healthcare equality & advocacy is actually the field in which I work professionally. (I have, ironically, just returned from the National LGBTI Health Summit in Chicago yesterday!) So I am often doing advocacy and education around the ban on gay and bisexual men's blood (and sperm, actually....we are not allowed to donate sperm in fertility clinics either unless our sperm has been requested by a specific recipient). The rule banning blood from any man who has had sex with another man since the year 1977 is, indeed, an FDA rule that the Red Cross is forced to follow. It is true that the Red Cross has publicly stated that they are in favor of revising the rule...HOWEVER, it is important to note that the last time the Red Cross proposed a revision to the rule, they recommended not banning all gay/bi men, but simply stating that they had to be deferred or one year from their last same-sex contact-----a "revised" policy that still effectively bans all sexually active adult gay/bi men from donating blood....even those who consistently practice sexual safety OR who are involved in long term monogomous relationships with an uninfected partner----so, in truth, this "lifting of the ban" is a semantic smoke screen. Others are absolutely right that questions used to defer potential blood donors should be altered to be more risk AND time-specific so that they fall in line with the science of HIV and blood testing.

I realize this is a touchy issue for many to talk about, but I also agree that our community and its allies need to hold both the FDA and the Red Cross' feet to the fire on this issue and lift the ban because not only does it perpetuate institutionalized homophobia, but it is largely scientifically unnecessary AND it is epidemiologically unsound.

1.) Scientifically unnecessary: The truth is that testing for HIV has improved exponentially over the past 3 decades. The most commonly used tests today can be accurate for a window as little as 21 to 90 days after infection and there antigen-based tests (which, I might add, the Red Cross USES!!!) that can detect even acute infection in less than a 21 day window. Testing can and does detect infected blood every day in this country----so enforcin a window of over 30 years or even one year is not needed.

2.) Epidemiologically unsound: The current rules are based on the presumption that gay and bisexual men are the group of people (or at least the ONLY group of people) who are likely to have an undiagnosed HIV infection which we know in this country is no longer always in case. Take, for example, the dramatic increases we have seen in the last decade (or more) of HIV infections of heterosexual African-American women. In truth, if the FDA/Red Cross, want to ban a community of people based on what is perceived as "statistical high risk" of HIV, then they should enforce a ban on straight Black women----and, of course, they would never do so (nor SHOULD they) because it is clearly racist and sexist....

...policies like this are rooted less in science than they are in bigotry and we have a responsibility to speak out against them!

great post :thumbsup2

your sig picture is great, the two of you are adorable :)

[TuckandStuiesMom]

great post :thumbsup2

your sig picture is great, the two of you are adorable :)

what she said. :thumbsup2:goodvibes:thumbsup2

[tig82174]

great post :thumbsup2

your sig picture is great, the two of you are adorable :)

what she said. :thumbsup2:goodvibes:thumbsup2

:goodvibes Thanks. That pic is from our most recent DCL cruise....we always wear Disney ties and tuxes on our cruises....that's our 101 Dalmations tux set! :)

[jjjmranch]

I stopped giving blood because the blood mobile technicians tried to reinsert the needle in my arm with their bare hands - no gloves. I was freaking out about that and never went back.

[MariDisney]

I stopped giving blood because the blood mobile technicians tried to reinsert the needle in my arm with their bare hands - no gloves. I was freaking out about that and never went back.

With respect, I thought the person wearing the gloves was protecting themselves from anything the person receiveing the needle might have, not the other way around. Not that it's right and is probably against procedure, but just wondering.

[jjjmranch]

I can understand they're protecting themselves, but those bloodmobiles are used heavily and while I was waiting my turn, I didn't see any major disinfecting going on!

[LuvMy3Monkeys]

Actually this point about hte difference between it being an FDA rule and a Red Cross rule is correct....PARTIALLY. LGBTIQ healthcare equality & advocacy is actually the field in which I work professionally. (I have, ironically, just returned from the National LGBTI Health Summit in Chicago yesterday!) So I am often doing advocacy and education around the ban on gay and bisexual men's blood (and sperm, actually....we are not allowed to donate sperm in fertility clinics either unless our sperm has been requested by a specific recipient). The rule banning blood from any man who has had sex with another man since the year 1977 is, indeed, an FDA rule that the Red Cross is forced to follow. It is true that the Red Cross has publicly stated that they are in favor of revising the rule...HOWEVER, it is important to note that the last time the Red Cross proposed a revision to the rule, they recommended not banning all gay/bi men, but simply stating that they had to be deferred or one year from their last same-sex contact-----a "revised" policy that still effectively bans all sexually active adult gay/bi men from donating blood....even those who consistently practice sexual safety OR who are involved in long term monogomous relationships with an uninfected partner----so, in truth, this "lifting of the ban" is a semantic smoke screen. Others are absolutely right that questions used to defer potential blood donors should be altered to be more risk AND time-specific so that they fall in line with the science of HIV and blood testing.

I realize this is a touchy issue for many to talk about, but I also agree that our community and its allies need to hold both the FDA and the Red Cross' feet to the fire on this issue and lift the ban because not only does it perpetuate institutionalized homophobia, but it is largely scientifically unnecessary AND it is epidemiologically unsound.

1.) Scientifically unnecessary: The truth is that testing for HIV has improved exponentially over the past 3 decades. The most commonly used tests today can be accurate for a window as little as 21 to 90 days after infection and there antigen-based tests (which, I might add, the Red Cross USES!!!) that can detect even acute infection in less than a 21 day window. Testing can and does detect infected blood every day in this country----so enforcin a window of over 30 years or even one year is not needed.

2.) Epidemiologically unsound: The current rules are based on the presumption that gay and bisexual men are the group of people (or at least the ONLY group of people) who are likely to have an undiagnosed HIV infection which we know in this country is no longer always in case. Take, for example, the dramatic increases we have seen in the last decade (or more) of HIV infections of heterosexual African-American women. In truth, if the FDA/Red Cross, want to ban a community of people based on what is perceived as "statistical high risk" of HIV, then they should enforce a ban on straight Black women----and, of course, they would never do so (nor SHOULD they) because it is clearly racist and sexist....

...policies like this are rooted less in science than they are in bigotry and we have a responsibility to speak out against them!

Very informative :thumbsup2

Seems kind of asinine that a used-to-be-with-a-man guy can donate but a still-with-a-man guy can not. :sad2:

If anyone here is interested in privately donating... I'm an O+... ;) and I'll take the "gay blood" any day!

Just the simple fact that seeing some of you guys so upset you were turned away from helping another person is awesome! :thumbsup2 Some people wouldn't give if the other person was dying at their feet. :sad2: