(no subject)

[geminigirl]

I sit on the disaster/emergency preparedness committee at work.
(I'm complaining about blood donations again. You can skip this if you don't want to read my ranting about it.)

Currently, I'm working on getting some or all of us certified in CPR/First Aid, just in case something should happen, and because those of us in the field should have it if we're out with youth, and it's a job requirement for some people on staff. So I'm checking out the Red Cross website, to find out who to call about this, and come accross this PDF about preparing your business. I skim it over, figuring it might have some information of use to us at our next meeting. Under the Orange Alert section, there's something about offering to organize a blood drive.

(insert standard blood drive rant here)

you know...the one about my not being allowed to donate blood cause I fuck men who fuck other men...and most of the men I work with not being allowed to donate blood because they fuck other men. Screw monogamy here. Screw condoms, and all the safer sex information we've been talking about for years. But you know...those guys who bring home a different girl every night, those women who never ever use condoms with their partners...you know...it's okay for them to give blood cause well, they can't get HIV from heterosexual contact. Right?

Okay. This is a repetitive rant. I know these guidelines were up for review a few years ago, and that the prohibition against men who sleep with men was under debate but why hasn't it yet been lifted? Really...

Comments

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Yep. I think the decision to keep it was 7-6.
At this point the original statistics are outdated. I could be misquoting, but the largest amount of new cases are NOT homosexually transmitted anymore.

I can't donate 'cause I was in England pretty much all of 1996. Even though the British Beef thing started in March of 96 (less than 3 months in) and I didn't eat beef while I was there anyway.

My Vegan ex boyfriend (British) falls under the same Mad Cow restriction.

Related rants include my feelings about the news organizations for making a big deal of how the red cross had to throw out blood a couple months after 9/11/01. Well, duh. The only reason for the huge blood drives then was to 1) give people something to do, and 2) be able to contact them later so that we'd not be in this constant blood shortage. So much for 2.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Yep. I was in Spain for 9 months in '93. And I can't donate because of Mad Cow either.

*annoyed*

[katishna.livejournal.com]

It's probably the stupidest rule they have.

So what's to stop people who KNOW they're safe (regular testing, etc) from just lying? If they never find out, it won't hurt them. I recall HIV having an "incubation period" where you won't test positive even though you've been exposed, if you're past that, then what the heck.

They won't let me donate after my tattoos either, but they haven't stopped calling when I tell them I just got one, or when I tell them i'm pregnant and will call to donate when I'm done with it, etc. etc. Stupid system. stupid stupid.

[geminigirl]

Nothing stops people from lying. Except that I got tired of lying about my life to give blood. They don't want it-fine. You can't have it. I have a less common blood type, and it's their loss, not mine.

HIV has a window period from six weeks to six months where the body is producing antibodies to the virus and may not have measurable levels. 95% of people have measurable antibodies after six weeks though. Some people even sooner.

It's just stupid and it pisses me off and all kinds of other things.

[lovingboth]

It's an issue that's raised from time to time in the UK too. The main argument against is the statistics - one in six gay men in London has HIV, which is a higher percentage than any other group. So you ban gay men... and do it by saying 'no men who have sex with another man since 19xx'. You've given the argument for ending it.

It's something I have mixed feelings about. Yes, a blanket ban is silly, but... how much of a risk is acceptable?

The US would be better off if it banned paid donations, but the blood industry - the one that fought against things like heat treatment - is presumably still too strong.

I'm amused to see people who've been to the UK banned from donating because of BSE. Needless to say, we don't have that one here.

[jaikob.livejournal.com]

If they have confidence in the tests and standards for heterosexual men, why don't they have that same confidence in those same tests for homosexuals? I mean, I know it's stupid and you don't agree with it either, but what's their argument on the matter?

[rivka.livejournal.com]

They keep the restrictions because they're not just worried about HIV - they're worried about the next HIV, the one we don't see coming, the one we don't know to test for. After all, Hep C came along after we "knew" donated blood was safe because we were already testing the blood supply for HIV.

The thing is, people who are at risk for one blood-borne pathogen tend to be at risk for others. The same groups of people who are at higher risk of contracting HIV are at higher risk of contracting Hep C, and are probably at higher risk of contracting whatever the next creepy blood-borne pathogen out there is. That's the problem with lying about your status to give blood because you "know you're safe." You might know you're HIV-negative, but most people haven't been tested for Hep C, and none of us will know in advance about the Next Thing until it happens.

They're not thinking at a personal or individual level, they're thinking at the level of "risks to the blood supply." It sucks for individual people who want to donate and would probably be safe donors, but I can't really say that I think it's unsound public health policy - especially given that they're not particularly short of donors.