Donations urgently needed at blood center

The article continues at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/393923_blood29.html

Why is this relevant to the GLBT Forum?, I hear you asking. Federal regulations prohibit accepting donations from any man who has ever had sex with another man. In other words, no matter how bad the blood shortage, men who have sex with men -- gay, bisexual and even straight guys to experimented at some point in their lives -- are considered tainted, unhealthy and unsuited for something so important. Despite me being one of the rarer blood types (A-), I am forever banned from being a donor. Sure, I could lie, but I'm not going back into the closet, not even for something so important.

Added: A bit more about the regulations

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/fda-blood/

If they did not automatically eliminate even perfectly safe (let alone other low risks) groups such as anybody who has spent more than a couple weeks in Europe in the last two decades.

I have a whole slew of A- ready to go the minute they stop the paranoia about JCD for a start.

them I'm gay.

Oh, the look on their faces. Pure disappointment.

:(

Many/most of them do not agree with the policy either.

In addition,I really hope that this antiquated, bigoted policy doesn't stop eligible donors from participating.

As I recall, any blood bank caught not screening out gay men and other "undesireables" will be blacklisted. Not only will they stop receiving subsidies from local, state and federal government agencies (you didn't think the juice and cookies fell from Heaven, did you?), they will likely be required to pay back subsidies they have already received, as far back as the Red Cross determines that they have been improperly screening donors. Further, the blood they collect will be ineligible to become part of the nation's blood supply. Circumventing this blacklist is a serious federal offense, under the theory that it amounts to biological terrorism. As a last resort, the Red Cross can yank an agency's license to collect and store blood, effectively putting them out of business; even private blood banks, which collect for research purposes only and not for public health, require a license to operate.

This bigotry is federal law for all intents and purposes. Worse, it is not something that can be changed by act of Congress; it can only be changed by a decision of the private non-profit agency charged with establishing and enforcing the rules regarding blood collection for public health.


Edited for spelling and grammar. Why is it that mistakes never appear until after you post?

The FDA also has this reg and refuses to remove it. Supposedly the Red Cross wants the reg changed but under Bush the FDA won't budge.

The last time I researched this, she was in charge of policy and was very adamant against changing the rule.

The more gay men protest this unfair and discriminatory practice, the sooner it will change.

Am I foolish for hoping that's true?

The people who run the drives can't change a thing and typically do not agree. In addition, their time should not be wasted collecting info on ineligible donors and appointments should not be booked by someone who is ineligible just to protest this issue.

It was an idle thought. You're right about not wasting people's time.

that's what I have

The number of people in the US with A- blood is fairly small; we make up about 6.3% of the US population. Such blood can be given to people with A-, A+, AB- and AB+, or about 47% of Americans so yes, it is in demand. The downside is that we can only receive A- or O- blood, which is carried by only about 13% of Americans. Type O-, which can be given to anyone, is found in about 6.6% of Americans. (I pulled these figures from an old chart I have, but I'm sure you can find this info on the web somewhere.)

If you are interested in blood types in general, this is what I remember about them:

There are a number of genes which code how to form red blood cells. A mutation in one gene causes the body to build red blood cells with a type of structure on its coat; a mutation in a different gene causes the body to build red blood cells with a different type of structure on its coat. These give rise to the A and B types. If you inherit one mutant gene from a parent and one "standard" gene, the mutant is dominant: you will have either type A or type B blood. If you inherit one of each, your red blood cells will have both structures and you will have type AB blood. If you inherit two standard genes, your red cells will not have either structure, and your blood type will be O.

These mutations have persisted because they actually offer evolutionary advantage. Either A or B (I don't remember which) gives slight protection against cholera, typhoid and related diseases; the other gives slight protection against smallpox. People with two A mutations or two B mutations are better protected than someone with only one mutation; type AB people have lesser protection, but are protected against both sets of diseases. People with type O have no inherent protection, which is likely the reason why smallpox and typhoid so devistated the Native Americans: most of North America's indigenous people have type O blood and so were more suseptible to diseases that Europeans and Africans could tolerate.

The type A and type B structures on the blood cells act as antigens; that is to say, they can cause an allergic reaction in someone not acclimated to their presence. If a person with type A blood is given blood containing the type B structure, then that person will likely have a life-threatening reaction. Thus, a type A person can receive type A or type O blood, but not type B or type AB blood. A person with type AB can receive any kind of blood in a transfusion, which is why that type is called the "universal recipient," but their blood can only be given to other type AB people. A person with type O can only receive type O blood, but their blood can be transfused into anyone, which is why they are called the "universal donor."

The plus or minus references the Rh antigens, so called because they were first found in the rhesus monkeys used in researching blood transfusions. Specifically, the sign indicates the presence or absence of one antigen in particular, Rh-D. It has been a while since I've looked it up, but I believe that this is not a genetic matter, but one of exposure from one or both of your parents. There are ways to counteract the effect of incompatable Rh, but it is generally better not to have to.

(and too lazy and/or busy to look it up).... What's the law in Europe/Asia/etc... on this?

http://us.oneworld.net/article/chinese-homosexuals-banned-donating-blood

Europe is a mixed bag.

Including anyone who's ever had even a single indeterminate HIV test, people who've lived in the UK within the last 30 years or so, etcetera. The FDA is very paranoid about blood-borne diseases like hepatitis, HIV, and vCJD in the transfusion supply, and I suppose you can't blame them too much for that. Such wide deferral critera is harsh, even given the lack of 100% reliable testing, but I have yet to see anyone suggest an equally effective replacement policy.

when I had recovered. Because I refused to lie, I was refused. When my friends were dying around me like front-line casualties, I tried again to donate. Again I refused to lie and again I was refused. I went to my doctor and asked to be tested for EVERYTHING: HIV, HEPA, HEPB, HEPC, all STDs, etc. I had my doctor issue a document stating my clean and untainted blood condition. I tried to donate. Again, I was refused. I am O+, the universal donor. I want to give blood. I believe in giving blood. I am not allowed.

It's the FDA. They're the ones that need convincing.

Also O- is the universal donor. O+ can only go to those with + types.

And yes, I know it's the FDA. I think they are overcompensating now for their shitty job during the 1980's of protecting the blood supply.

There are a lot of people that it's hurting.

I was incorrect above, as dsc in post #22 pointed out. The rules are set by the US Food and Drug Administration. Like most federal bureaucracies, the FDA is empowered by an act of Congress to establish and enforce regulations. These regulations are not laws exactly, but can carry the force of law.

The FDA has a FAQ here which answers a number of questions about their blood donation policies.

but cannot. That is truly tragic all the way around. I wonder what it would take to overturn a discriminatory practice by the FDA.

absolutely horrendous job they did of protecting the blood supply in the 1980's. The official government position-as dictated by Ronnie the Raygun--was "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." The Raygun misadministration spent most of the their two terms in office in a state of denial about AIDS. Thousands, literally tens of thousands of people--straight, GLBT persons, hemophiliacs, etc. died because Raygun and his rinky-tink public health agencies stuck their collective heads in the sand and refused to examine the rapidly accruing data and take action. Of all the sins and crimes of the Raygun misadministration, this was the worst.

And, even were it not for my blood disorder, I could not give blood because I have had sex with bisexual men.

Pretty fucked up if you ask me.